Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 17 November 19 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Berlin

Michael Berlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not appear to meet the guidelines at WP:PROF. The "Glaucoma Institute of Beverly Hills" is Berlin's private practice. Despite what one may infer from the article, his academic involvement is not impressive: 8 total papers (only 1 in the past 10 years) and only two on glaucoma (none in the past 10 years).[1] Not convinced that work on "Excimer Laser Trabeculostomy" is that notable enough per guidelines at WP:PROF. AED 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF, numerous cleanup tags on the article that do not appear to be solved anytime soon. Doesn't look like the organizations are particularly notable, though one has an article, but he doesn't appear notable enough within that. DoomsDay349 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delete In light of the paltry number of citations in scholarly press, this guy appears to be a non-notable ophthamologist. If additional references can be provided to establish ntoability, I will of course change my vote. --Jayron32 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Sr13 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN WP:PROFSkierRMH 08:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the professor does not have enough notability (according to WP:PROF) to justify him an article.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete May be notable, but doesn't cite sources. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shella * 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office 2.0

Office 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be a neologism. If you notice that the article has one source, that's because there's one person behind the entire idea, organising conferences and all. Also see: WP:NOT crystal ball. --user:Qviri 01:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Although, maybe it should be deleted. There are only 850000 non Wikipedia/COI ghits. -Amarkov blahedits 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I get 680 hits based on this link: [2]. This is the last page of the search showing the true amount of hits, with pages about OpenOffice.org and referencing Mr. Ghalimi personally filtered out. Or is my google-fu abandoning me here? Nevertheless, I'm not sure Google is a good way to decide this debate one way or the other. --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That's good, except you filtered out the standard buisness nonsense, which includes the phase "Open office". You also filtered out all hits mentioning Ghalimi as the coiner. -Amarkov blahedits 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. See http://www.office20con.com/profile.html?speaker=Ismael_Ghalimi. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Which part on the page linked tells us that this isn't a neologism coined and promoted by Mr. Ghalimi? --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Concept seems to be well established, and I'm not sure where else the information would go, but it certainly belongs here. --Falcorian (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: quite an established IT concept talked about in the IT media all over the place seemingly these days. Ben W Bell talk 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Much needed work, weakly notable. Sr13 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the article could use a rewrite however, as stated by Ben above, strong IT influences can be regarded as some basis for notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Cites a website for its source and has tons of google hits. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per avove †he Bread 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is notable and verifiable too no reason for erasure Yuckfoo 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename I think there should be an article on a "Web office" (ie. this basic concept), but "Office 2.0" is really just a neologism made up to annoy everyone who got so annoyed with "Web 2.0". Only when the concept of a "Web office" is commonly-known as "Office 2.0" (as the concept of a dynamic web is now commonly known as "Web 2.0") should this article be named as such. Also "Office 2.0" would refer to version 2.0 of Microsoft Office, so there is some conflict. —EatMyShortz 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and despise Marketcruft buzzhype rather than considered technological phenomeon that will be still around in three years time, however it is notable, widely accepted and established trash and passes the required tests. The article should be re-written to illustrate that this is a marketing principle, not an established technological phenomenon.•Elomis• 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment okies, just put some yards in cleaning the page up to what it really is, I'd like other people to have a look at it however because as a person who would love nothing better than to load marketing spinsters into a cannon and fire them into a wall, the article may have POV problems. •Elomis• 21:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Marcinkowski

James Marcinkowski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

James Marcinkowski was an unsuccessful candidate for Michigan's 8th congressional district. As per WP:C&E, it is preferable for articles created for congressional campaigns to be removed and included under an article about the campaign, which has been created at Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006. Contents of the Marcinkowski article have been copied to the destination article for future revising. The debate is whether Marcinkowski represents a notable person in his own right, outside of the congressional race, as per WP:BLP guidelines. It should be noted that Marcinkowski did not have an article until his run for Congress, and that the majority of the article's content comes from his Congressional campaign. Jeff 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: the statement that "Marcinkowski did not have an article until his run for Congress" is false, as I noted below. His article was created in the wake of his testimony to the Senate in July 2005.- csloat 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Good call. Ok, modify it to "having a stub until he ran for congress at which point his campaign filled in the article" -- Fair disclosure: I voted for Marcinkowski in the general election. --Jeff 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Marcinkowski had a bio page up before he announced his run for Congress. As you can see here, it was active in 2005 (though barely a stub). Unfortunately someone moved the page without consensus to Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006 instead of AfDing it first, so the link I gave has the wrong page title. In any case, Marcinkowski was known for his work with the CIA and for his outspoken response to the Plame affair. He testified about it to the Senate well before his unsuccessful congressional run. Prior to that, he was known for prosecuting suicide Dr. Kevorkian when he was a prosecutor in Michigan. He may not be the most well-known person to ever run for Congress, but he is not an unknown, and his congressional run was not the only reason he was considered notable enough for a BLP. His testimony to the Senate committee is here; David Corn called it "perhaps the most powerful rebuttal of and rebuke" of the testimony that day; the testimony is quoted in numerous places, including Todd Gitlin's book The Intellectuals and the Flag excerpted in The American Prospect.--csloat 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Marcinkowski is not mentioned by name in the Plame Affair article or the Jack Kevorkian article. I think though your "keep" argument is certainly the synopsis of the other side of this debate! Looking forward to more outside opinion. --Jeff 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Aside: That can easily be fixed by editing the Plame Affair article or the Jack Kevorkian article :)-csloat 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you're merging the content into another article, why not just turn it into a redirect? That doesn't require afd, makes the information easier to find, and preserves the page history needed for GFDL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment That's what was done, but csloat objected and wanted an AfD... So I went ahead and started the AfD request. Guess it probably could've just been a merge discussion back at the article, but I'm not really the best bureaucrat. --Jeff 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The prob with redirecting is that it turned a biography into a page about a historical event.--csloat 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If a person is only included because of one event, and the only thing worth writing about them is in relation to that one event, it's logical to redirect their name to that one event. The question of whether this guy has notability other than the election is a content dispute, and not an issue that needs to be brought to AFD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The question of whether this guy has notability other than the election is a content dispute, and not an issue that needs to be brought to AFD. Odd, I thought that the point of AfDs was to determine notability, and that "content dispute" occurs when editors agree on notability but disagree on wording. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I agree that simply moving the article was a bad idea. An article about an election needs a fundamentally different structure from a biography and we'd be better off with a decent article written from scratch to cover the election (or just a paragraph in the page on the district). This is really a mess. User:John Broughton's move has made things way screwy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, the article on the campaign - Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006 specifically says the information below [which is about Marcinkowski] will be edited down and will become part of a full article about this race. My intent is to turn that draft into a decent article - in fact, I'm setting up a wikiproject to recruit editors for this and a number of other races. While I'd love to be able to instantly create a complete article for the Michigan 8th race, I'm putting most of my efforts into the wikiproject, which hopefully will result in almost 100 good articles about House races in 2006.
I hope you won't use the same methods to create the rest of the articles; these moves just lead to a mess. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I did 15 or so of these moves, trying to be judicious - almost all the articles were short and the candidates clearly non-notable. This one was probably the longest and the most "on the cusp"; with hindsight, I probably wouldn't have done what I did, despite WP:BB. I do note that no one has objected to any of the other moves, as far as I know. John Broughton | Talk 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And my move didn't make things "way screwy" - what made things "screwy" was the copy/paste done by Commodore Sloat; he could have just done a move to put the article back where it was. Or he could have asked me about my move, and I could have told him him how to reverse it. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The more I look at this the worse it gets. The election article needs to be moved back to the guy's name to restore the history. This should be deleted for housekeeping as a copy-paste move, but with care to merge any new content with the moved over copy. I pity the admin who has to sort this out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to post a note on the discussion page of James Marcinkowski saying that the page history and prior versions of the article are available at Michigan 8th congressional district election, 2006, for those who want to look at those. And someone looking at the page history can also figure that out, since the oldest entry is a move. As for getting an admin involved - perhaps the AfD should be finished, first, since there is a disagreement here about whether Marcinkowski deserves an article or not? John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per csloat above -- Sholom 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and certainly verifiable. Note that the high-traffic election site www.electoral-vote.com started linking to our articles on both incumbents AND challengers for congressional seats this year; it's a sign that coverage of congressional challengers here is already EXPECTED by the world outside Wikipedia. Unfocused 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD template was removed from the article a few hours after the AfD started and never replaced, I am adding it and relisting, just to err on the side of caution. --W.marsh 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep though not notable merely as a political candidate, his involvement in both the Kevorkian and Plame issues seems to establish notability through other means easily. --Jayron32 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep csloat covered my views well. --Falcorian (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Couch

Non-notable author dockingmantalk 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as for his military service, he's a great guy and all but he isn't notable; only a Captain and no important medals, dunno if he even has a Purple Heart, let alone something big like a Naval Cross (or whatever the big Navy thing is). As for the books, none of them appear to be bestsellers, critically acclaimed, or anything. Totally non-notable person. DoomsDay349 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Also see the second paragraph of his biography (external link). SWAdair 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs editing, not deletion. Couch appears to be notable enough to me even if he wasn't an author. And is is Rear Admirals and higher for the Navy? --Hjal 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, claim of "multiple independent reviews or awards" made in earlier keep comment, but what source is this from? Seraphimblade 14:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--SUIT 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He wrote several nonfiction books and novels which were not included in the original article. I added some reviews. Clearly notable as author of numerous books published by major publishers and reviewed favorably.Edison 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a notable author. Amazon lists him and he's gotten good ratings.--aviper2k7 22:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SWAdair. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep dosen't seem that non-notable. Atlantis Hawk 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He wrote several excelent books, which sold well.
  • Keep seems to be notable †he Bread 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Gum

Roy Gum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable bio, possible WP:COI. Article was proposed for speedy and prod, but those tags were deleted by author. Shunpiker 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article is about non-notable person, autobiographical; all in all a soapbox -- dockingmantalk 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. In addition, the author has a verbatim copy of the article as his userpage. -- dockingmantalk 02:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 02:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original prodder. Resolute 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete -- the db-bio was correct. No assertion of notability. Brushes with notable people does not make one notable. SWAdair 08:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomSkierRMH 08:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep -- Samir धर्म 04:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikIran

WikIran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Heja Helweda 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - even if it can be verified, it needs two outside coverages per WP:WEB. MER-C 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiki website that exists. Notable in Iran. For MER-C's comment: Would LyricWiki fail as well? Sr13 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
WikIran pales into insignificance when compared with LyricWiki. Merely existing isn't an assertion of notability and therefore cannot be used to argue for the keeping of this article. MER-C 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with MER-C here. WP:WEB is pretty clear. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable website in Iran, mentioned in the electronic and printed media. --ManiF 12:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Provides no links to third-party coverage. Sandstein 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB, with the emphasis on multiple and non-trivial (no indication that the Iranian.com reference was substantial). Demiurge 13:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Using this query, I found a reference on the front page of Iranian.com, full text is: "our wiki/Build encyclopedia on Iran & Iranians/wikiran.org". From the "our" it looks like this fails the "independent" part of the WP:WEB criteria as well. Demiurge 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Important resource and referenced by Iranian.com. Lists over 500 articles and says it is "inspired by Wikipedia". WP:WEB is not a policy but guideline so we cannot say it is binding. Why delete now and then create again when you agree it is notable?? If this was on Wikia would you still delete? Keep and improve and let us be patient for "slashdot effect" :) Khorshid 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just so that people here know: WikIran's website will soon be transferred to a server provided by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as it continues to grow and expand. And unlike Heja's claim, it is a non-profit encyclopedia and it is referenced and mirrored by several other websites.--Zereshk 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Its notability section has me convinced. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • One of the sources is not independent (as I pointed out above), the other is simply a website directory which trivially includes the site[3]. (The article's claim that the "our" means "belonging to the Iranian community" seems more than a little dubious to me, considering it wasn't added until after I made my point above.) Demiurge 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's little more than an ad pamphlet. MB
  • Keep, as important. Siba 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB, recreate when/if it does. - Francis Tyers · 15:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bogdan 15:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    Also please not that there are some copyvios on their "encyclopedia", as some articles are copy-pasted from Wikipedia without attribution: for example http://www.wikiran.org/wiki/Ziyarid from Ziyarid. bogdan 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Alleged copyvios on that site are no reason to delete a Wikipedia entry. It is not just a Wikipedia mirror, it is a Wikipedia spin-off that has developed in its own way.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why you put the word encyclopedia in quotes, as if to suggest that it's not a real encyclopedia? So, from your perspective, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but this one isn't, right? :) That's nice. Now, the history of the article you mention was started by Zereshk, and if he's involved with wikIran, the copyvio issue is a bit moot. But there's another thing, which makes that point even more moot. It's released under the GFDL as well, just like Wikipedia, so someone can easily go there and put the attribution there if it's missing. Right? I mean, that is the entire purpose of the GFDL, is it not? Floodlands 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, also please note that linking WikIran (being a small wiki) "should be avoid", according to our policy. I see that to some extent the spamming of Iran-related pages has already been began. :-) bogdan 06:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Which policy is that? I've been looking through the policy pages, and can't find anything that says Wikipedians aren't allowed to link to small websites or wikis. That's nonsense. As an admin, you're really shouldn't make things up. If an editor incorporates text from wikIran or another public GFDL corpus provider, they can also add an attribution link. By virtue of that fact alone, your claim is incorrect. By the way, why the antagonism? You want to delete this article, that's fine. But please do not make false accusations of "spamming" against other users. Assume good faith, and leave your sarcasm at the door. Thanks. Floodlands 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
from Wikipedia:External links: "Links normally to be avoided": Links to wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial numbers of editors.. bogdan 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice try. That's a guideline, not a policy. As an admin, shouldn't you have a clear understanding of the difference? ;) Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiran appears to be a one man show, as the only person who edited it in the last week is a certain User:Aeon, so it fails to meet the criteria. bogdan 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually judging from the history of articles User:Fesenjoon looks to be the more active user. But this is a moot point. The importance of any website is the quality of its content, not the quantity of users involved. What's interesting is that this wouldn't even be an issue if this site experiences what another editor here calls the "Slashdot effect" and achieved significant notability. I'm sure you would still use that "one-man-show" bit as an excuse for deletion, but you would never be able to dispute the notability criteria. What is nice to see are the other editors here who are positive in their outlook, desiring to delete now, but recreate later when notability is attained. And it is also of note to mention that these editors refrain from making accusations and the use of a sarcastic tone. Wikipedia needs far more positive, level-headed editors like that. Floodlands 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zereshk. Khoikhoi 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are a lot less notable subjects on Wikipedia related to fictional places and people, why not have a short entry on a new on-line encyclopaedia?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Can be recreated when it does. — mark ✎ 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per similar AfDs at GetWiki and Wikinfo or merge with Iranian media (or some such article). Possibly a bad faith nomination. metaspheres 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a bad faith assumption!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. Not based on the edit history. metaspheres 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Demiurge Bastiq▼e demandez 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Existing isn't a claim to notability, "important" isn't a reason to keep, and 500 articles is almost nothing for a wiki. Waiting for the Slashdot effect to hit it, or even wanting Wikipedia to help produce that effect, is no reason to keep it and if anything a reason to delete. This website does not meet WP:WEB. --Rory096 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zereshk. Looks good to me. DragonRouge 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Bertilvidet 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Some so called admins are already taking it upon themselves and deleting all links to WikIran articles on WP. Note User:Bogdangiusca's edits for example. His deletions are not "policy" as he claims, but guidelines, and he knows it. Yet he persists. Sad part is that if you take a closer look, most WikIran articles are more complete in content than their WP counterpart. I see such moves as purely intentional and obstructive.--Zereshk 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Spam is also a guideline. That doesn't prevent people from removing "Enl4rge Y0ur Pen1s" ads. :-) bogdan 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That comparison is totally out of line. There is no way you can pass off adding links to wikIran as "spamming" especially considering both the nature of the site and the fact that Zereshk has been by far the most active editor in the sphere of Iranian articles here on Wikipedia. Respect and manners go a long way in this world. Before his arrival, the vast majority of Iran articles were mere stubs. Accusing a long-term editor of his class, expertise and sincerity - not to mention all the incredible amounts of time he has dedicated to Wikipedia - of spamming is in, to put it bluntly, incredibly bad taste and is a borderline personal attack. Floodlands 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with your objection to this comment, but given that you've only been on Wikipedia two days, it is amazing that you know so much about Zereshk's edit history.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that this user certainly has never edited alongside Zereshk; except for one edit to his userpage, this user has never edited outside this AfD! --Rory096 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
... although the user's evident interest in this AfD has not prompted them to vote.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have any specific objections or problems with me, there are other, more proper channels for that. Otherwise, please refrain from any further commenting on my responses, unless you are objecting to any points that I have raised. Thanks. Floodlands 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Its another Encyclopedic work like Wikipedia and people should know about it. Plus there is also an Armeniapedia and probably more such Encyclopedic sites. I support such sites fully. --alidoostzadeh 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Ali.Khosrow II 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not a personal website, it is a free encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia. - Marmoulak 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep,per ALi.--Pejman47 09:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Hectorian 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (removed comment by banned user Darkred). Khoikhoi 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you got any proof of this? Are you referring to those named here [4]? It could have an impact on the article's content, if the article is saved - I still maintain my keep vote, but think that such details should be included if they are true.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
An interesting point: WikIran was started on 7 May (according to the history of its main page), which is coincidentally the same date as the remedies concluded for the Aucaman arbitration, which set out topical bans [5]. I think there is a fair point here [6]. Personally, I think WikIran is just the first of many, created because collaborate projects work better when the editors are unified behind a certain editorial line rather than the despair and futility that Wikipedia generates - and what's wrong with that?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you and the above anon are going to make accusations against specific editor(s), please name names. And provide a name for yourself as well, and your background in that case. And of course, please provide concrete evidence. Otherwise, please refrain from such speculations. Also, I have to ask the anon if s/he is also a banned user, and if so, please provide your banned username(s) for the record. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you joking? Why should I give you my name, address and occupation simply because I have made an enquiry. And it is a bit rich for you to make demands as someone who has only created an account to participate in this AfD!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please keep your outrage to a minimum and read my post carefully. And by the way, this is not a message board for general discussion. Thanks. Floodlands 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You are extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules for someone who has only just signed up. Some might say that you are a sockpuppet. But I could not possibly comment :o)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To use your own words in a comment further above, "that's a bad faith assumption!" Floodlands 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia - we're all hypocrites here! ;o)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what that's supposed to imply, but to each their own, I guess. Floodlands 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It implies a joke.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm laughing. Floodlands 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Zereshk and Ali--Sa.vakilian 08:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is notable enough.Gol 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 69.140.173.15 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable as other wiki encyclopedias like Armeniapedia and Wipipedia Roozian 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect this and Dev Sibwarra to The Truce at Bakura -- Samir धर्म 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dev Sibrawa

Dev Sibrawa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Minor Star Wars character. 1 ghit (not quite a googlewhack, if you remove the quotes you get three), thus unverifiable. Crufty and unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I believe this falls squarely under the "that one guy who appeared once in the third episode of the second season" clause, from a policy/guideline I have forgotten the name of. -Amarkov blahedits 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Truce at Bakura (or, merge into List of minor Star Wars characters) per WP:FICT. The reason you get only 1 ghit is because the name is misspelled. ColourBurst 04:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of minor Star Wars characters per ColourBurst. hateless 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Minor characters have their own list, and he's minor. --Falcorian (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Falcorian. Sr13 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would say merge, but it's a poor article. 2,480 Google hits when spelled correctly, but he only appears in one book. -LtNOWIS 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Would vote to delete, except that there already exists an article into which it can be merged. 38.100.34.2 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. hoax.. Aksi_great (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clayton, Oregon

Clayton, Oregon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hoax article. After consultation with several editors we can find no sources proving this place exists. The one article that links to it may be in error. Katr67 02:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Please see the article's talk page. Also note that the same editor created the article State Highway 128 (Oregon), which is also up for AfD. Katr67 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Has resisted all efforts to prove it actually exists. StuffOfInterest 02:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find any record of this even being a collection of trailors. If it's a hoax, what a strange one it is. --Oakshade 03:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax I am always surprised by articles about places that RamBot didn't catch. While there are MANY notable, but unincorporated places that RamBot didn't create, a quick google check does verify that this one is entirely made up. --Jayron32 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax fails everything test SkierRMH 08:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. It's east of nowhere. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete see my google search here.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is a hoax, my ghits turned up the same as Bakaman's, only Wikipedia article mentions of its existence.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is why I tag even articles about hiways and towns which are unsourced. Edison 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonexistant. ReverendG 04:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delete this please it looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If a place doesn't exist in the real world, then better to write about it in your next novel rather than on Wikimedia. Speedy Delete hence. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete attack pages. Kimchi.sg 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garth Wintergreen, Matthew Hüygens-Villeneuve

Tagged for speedy deletion by an anonymous user saying this article is a hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-18 02:58Z

  • Speedy delete - yes it is a hoax. Zero non-wiki ghits when combining "Garth Wintergreen" and "Garth and Matthew News on Two" (the radio show). The other guy gets 2 non-wiki ghits, none of which are relevant. So tagged. MER-C 03:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete both as attack articles. They are clearly meant to spoof two members of an internet forum. SWAdair 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spoof fails everything categorySkierRMH 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. —Cryptic 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadri-

Quadri- (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Topic is subsumed by Wiktionary entry wikt:Quad- Myasuda 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Redirect per Uncle G. Isn't there a speedy category for dicdefs? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No. I think the concern is that the difference between dicdef and not is too thin and subjective. -Amarkov blahedits 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others. 1ne 06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; dicdef. SkierRMH 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. feydey 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No deletion is required. Like I did with most of the others, almost a year ago, redirect to numerical prefix, which is an encyclopaedia article on numerical prefixes that is cross-linked to the several dictionary articles on the individual numerical prefixes. Uncle G 13:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Uncle G. - Mike МиГ 14:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, also withdrawn although it's irrelevant now. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas Sampler

Kansas Sampler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:ORG based on local scope & lack of third-party sources, and content is taken almost entirely from the various websites associated with the organization, only slightly reorganized. – Little Miss Might Be Wrong 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Needs editing, but there seem to ample hits at unrelated sites

--Hjal 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but it needs to be rewritten per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The organization is held in high esteem at Kansas University [7] and the founder has been cited by (local) Congressman Jerry Moran as "an effective and tireless advocate for Kansas' rural communities" [8] and has served on a state task force about rural life[9]. In any case, there are sufficient independent sources to develop an article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Added 4 independent newspaper references. Edison 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question OK, it looks like I was wrong here. Is there a special process for withdrawing a delete proposal? Should I just remove the tag, or should I let the discussion play out for archival purposes. –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wooden Wars

Wooden Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Non-notable computer game modification. Khatru2 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SkierRMH 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an apparently non-notable game mod.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable.--aviper2k7 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quake and Kaik

Quake and Kaik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google search for "Quake y Kaik" finds only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom...
  • Speedy delete per nom and (fill in the name of your favorite WP policy here, it probably applies) Thoroughly debunked on the Spanish WP. BTW, in Spanish quake rhymes with cake and flake, but not kaik, and one of the "actors" (Miguel Sánchez) was a 17th century Mexican priest. Cráter humeante, pronto. Tubezone 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aarón González

Aarón González (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google search for "Quake y Kaik" finds only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Delete like you've never deleted before. SkierRMH 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ¡Guacala! per above. Tubezone 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove WP:BLP warning from talk page, it doesn't apply, then DELETE article per nom. 170.215.83.83 01:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geremy Olkous

Geremy Olkous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This appears to be hoax. Virtually all of the ghits for this person (in English or otherwise) appear to be WP mirrors and the Roseau Warriors are a high school team in Minnesota... author looks to be the same as the author of Quake and Kaik and Aarón González, both up for AfD as hoaxes. Tubezone 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. At the end of the day, notability and verifiability count the most; while the existance of the show can be verified from [10], discard the (unsourced) season summaries and you get a show that is not notable enough for its own article. Kimchi.sg 09:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gettin' Later

Gettin' Later (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vanity article about a college TV show. Unverifiable. Recury 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep I've googled and found clear sources. Will add to article now. Gekedo 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC) And Comment - This is far from unverifiable...there is an official website as well as numerous references to the show, upon a Google search. However, I do think there is rather too much information here. Could do with a trim. Gekedo 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No indication why this TV show is supposed to be notable. One source is actually a mirror of the Wikipedia article, two are associated with the show, one is a college newspaper article that briefly mentions it. Not really overwhelming. Sandstein 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep This show, it's guest list, and some of it's subject matter dig surprisingly deep into college and professional sports as well as entertainment, particularly in the Pittsburgh region. I do agree that some details are a bit overkill, but as a whole, this show provides a meaningful look into the regional sportscape as well as the opinions and perceptions of those who are/were a aprt of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.153.103 (talk • contribs) .

Strong keep This show was the flagship of a once dead University television station, and pretty much single-handedly brought it back to life. It laid the groundwork for a station that is still functioning to this day. Also, the show had on many regional guests and even a few national guests, rare for a local talk show. It allowed viewers to see local personalities in a way they normally didn't see. There are many sources online related to the show. It was available every week online long before networks began carrying shows online. It is an important piece of local programming history and reruns can still be viewed online to this day. Definitely deserves to keep the entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.6.70 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. I've got socks more notable than this. WMMartin 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per prior precedents on AfD, college or university broadcast stations which ONLY broadcast to their particular university do NOT deserve separate articles (though they can and should be mentioned on the article about the university itself). An article about a TV show on a college station that is only seen by students of said college is doubleplus not notable. The lack of verifiable third party sources confirms this. If multiple references in reputable press (unconnected to the show or college) about this show can be provided, I would change my vote. --Jayron32 05:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is informative, and well written. --Falcorian (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. 1ne 06:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHR Global (second nomination)

CHR Global (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

We've been fighting this one off and on for almost a year now. Article was unanimously deleted as advertising in February 2006, and attempts have been made off and on to recreate it ever since. A quick {{db-repost}} tagging has taken care of it each time, until now, when the creator managed to get an admin to back him up on it. So back to AfD it must come. My rationale will remain exactly the same as it was the first time, as the new article has the exact same problems today as the old one: "Pure advertising. No links to any other Wikipedia pages." (Except pages related to the last AfD, anyway [11].) Aaron 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, per CSD G4. I don't believe it's blatant spam however (thus not G11-able), but it does appear to be a repost. hateless 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G4. Spam masquerading as an article, no assertion of notability. Resolute 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comixpedia

Comixpedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non notable websites. as WP:WEB. Duyouknows 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Comixpedia.com, get rid of Comixpedia.org. Comixpedia.com is notable, but .org isn't. 1ne 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral on Comixpedia.com. I'll get rid of the Comixpedia.org half of the article, since I would have !voted speedy delete if it were in a separate article. MER-C 08:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question what does "has featured cover art by" mean? Did these artists (who I presume are notable because some of them have articles) create content specifically for Comixpedia or did Comixpedia just republish it? Demiurge 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    The former. Nifboy 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-borderline if not blatant spam, article links only to own site. Little to no assertion of notability aside from "notability by association". Seraphimblade 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikilinking using "comixpedia:" goes to comixpedia.org. Danny Lilithborne 01:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline speedy. Fails WP:WEB, no third-party coverage. Sandstein 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, even if only to be re-written as a stub article explaining the difference (in content or authorship) between comixpedia.com and comixpedia.org. 38.100.34.2 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing verified by third party reputable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. —Mets501 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the Heavyskies

In the Heavyskies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. as non notable fan films or fancraft. Google 490hit. Imdb no films page. Duyouknows 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - being mentioned in a podcast (which ChaosRadio seems to be) or discussed on a forum aren't assertions of notability. This falls in the unremarkable web content basket called CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 08:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete pure WP:CRUFT SkierRMH 08:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete non-notable fan film, violation of both WP:NOT and WP:CRUFT.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Wikipedia is not Youtube. Fan made videos are not really important here. Kyo cat(T)•(C) 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 (web content). Kimchi.sg 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vangelis (Buffyverse)

Vangelis (Buffyverse) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. as non notable fan films or fancraft. see Imdb no films page. Duyouknows 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - being mentioned in a random podcast or discussed on a blog aren't assertions of notability. This falls in the unremarkable web content basket called CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 08:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy delete Pure fancruft WP:CRUFT SkierRMH 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 02:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akron Wiki

Akron Wiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non notable Wiki. It has been speedied twice before, but I see it has sources which may be an assertion of notability. Nevertheless, it is not the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" in order for the page to meet WP:WEB. Khatru2 06:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. feydey 11:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources...cited by a newspaper... Keep ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ReverendG 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backpacker (hip hop)

Backpacker (hip hop) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unreferenced silly neologism found in the speedy backlog. Deleted once via prod and partially reposted. Opabinia regalis 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd heard it before and wondered what it meant, but this looks like a job for Urbandictionary or another crowd like that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. SkierRMH 08:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was the original prodder (the OP, yo) and placed the db-repost this time. -- Mikeblas 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment so you know, recreating an article deleted by prod counts as contesting the deletion, so technically not eligible for db-repost. Opabinia regalis 01:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not an article worth keeping and as stated above, obvious neologism.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete completely ridiculous non-notable term. ReverendG 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This entry is terrible, but this is not a non-notable term. It's used often regarding rappers like Kanye West, Jurassic 5, and Mos Def, as well as their fans. Here's an article from the Seattle times that uses it [12], a Jurassic 5 interview that uses the term [13], an album review of 9th wonder [14], and a PopMatters music review with the term [15]. Just a sampling...this is a term with widespread usage. Keep and Cleanup Chubbles1212 04:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of watch manufacturers

List of watch manufacturers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list appears to be listcruft. There is no good definition of what a "watch manufacturer" is and listing every brand name is not appropriate.

This article was under proposed deletion, but it was disputed with the claim that it "Should be a fairly trivial excercise to decruftify this." On the contrary, I think it will be very difficult to decruftify.

First off, note that there already is a Category:Watchmakers, I'm sorry for failing to mention this in the prod. Many of the problems with this list, however apply to that category also.

Secondly, I confess I was hoping this list would go away quietly because an explanation of why it is a bad idea is not simple nor obvious.

Watch manufacturing goes back about 500 years. The listcruft article says that any "list of something" that doesn't have a definition for that "something" is highly questionable. The closest thing to a defintion of a watch manufacturer is a watchmaker, but as noted in that article, this includes most people who just repair watches. Imagine if people who repaired cars were called automakers rather than auto mechanics, or anyone who assembled white box, repaired or upgraded computers was a computer maker.

For the last couple hundred years, a "watch manufacture" could be anything for one person to a large company. A "watch manufacture" could produce almost all parts of a watch assemble, test and finish them, but never have its name put on the dial or be sold under its name. Or, a "watch manufacture" could do little more than contract with others to produce a, possible stock, watch with their name on it. Or, a "watch manufacture" may produce a few watches, but mostly resell other watches under their name. Or, a "watch manufacture" might make only a few easy to make parts, such as the case. Or, a "watch manufacture" might not make all the parts, but do all the work required to turn a rough movement (or an Ébauche) into a usable timepeice. Or, a "watch manufacture" might take a fully working movement and add a few flourishes. Or, ....

If you removed all current "watch manufactures" that didn't just buy generic quartz movements or ETA mechanical movements, you would eliminate almost all the names in the list of watch manufacturers, and end up with a handful such as Swatch and Rolex. However, in order to do that, you would need to know a great deal about the actual watches, something that many "watch manufactures" try very hard to keep private. The watch industry makes heavy use of branding, and has for hundreds of years, with effectively idencial watches selling for 10 or even 100 times as much with one name as another.

Because of long historical and legal precedent, basically any name that has ever appeared on a watch face has a solid claim to being a "watch manufacture". Attempting to apply more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture" will result in strong resistance from both those companies and loyal customers.

There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures". For example, look at some that are still in print on shentonbooks.com: "WATCHMAKERS AND CLOCKMAKERS OF THE WORLD: 21st CENTURY EDITION" at 720 pages, "GREATER MANCHESTER CLOCKS AND CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS" at 344 pages, "COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF AMERICAN CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS 1640-1950" at 52 pages, and several others from just that one book seller.

A complete list of watch manufacturers would easily contain thousands of entries.

Wrs1864 07:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are more than 40 links to WP articles in that list, which suggests that there is a fair amount of interest in watch makers/manufacturers/sellers. One or more of the entries are annotated--the list could be improved by annotating it further. --Hjal 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures"" — This is a pretty strong Keep argument. Not to mention "more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture"" sounds like WP:OR. Demiurge 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. Seraphimblade 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/questions My argument is not that there isn't interest, nor that the list would be short, but rather that the list will be effectively unlimited and unmaintainable. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. Remember, any name that has appeared on a watch face, any person who has or had a career as a "watchmaker" would qualify. Right now, this list is primarily external links to small companies that most likely manufacture very few, if any parts of the watches they sell, along with internal links to things like Diesel (clothing company), DKNY and Victorinox which do not actually manfacuter watches, or internal links such as Roamer, Skagen, Xemex (redlinked in the list) which don't link to articles related to watches. Is there any criteria for what does or does not belong here that can make it less of a website directory? For example, there are things like list of people, but those lists seem to be restricted to internal links. Would that be a reasonable restriction? Remember, there already is a category for watchmakers, which automatically restricts the list to internal links. I will keep an eye on this, and if people can convince me that this list can be "easily decruftified", I will withdraw my AfD. Originally, I was just going to delete what I thought were inappropriate entries, but realized that would delete almost everything. Wrs1864 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If you see any bad entries of non-watch manufacturers, the solution is to delete those entries, not this list. FrozenPurpleCube 15:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, but that is kind of my point, what qualifies as a "watch manufacturer"? WP:lists explicitly says "For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value" and the historic definition would include a huge number of brand names. For example, I have a web page that lists a couple hundred names that I could add to this article, and this list is only for one particular "real" manufacturer that has been defunct for decades, it was known for *not* selling watches under other names, and I collected the list over a relatively short time. I think that if I either deleted 90% of this list, or added hundreds of new entries, that I would violate WP:POINT. Wrs1864 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • This list isn't for all watch manufacturers, it's for notable watch manufacturers (the "notable" is implicit in all lists on Wikipedia). A good rule of thumb is that, if it wouldn't deserve a Wikipedia article of its own, it doesn't deserve inclusion in the list. Demiurge 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok, fair enough. Would it be acceptable to delete all external links? Also, I'm not sure how well WP:NOTE works when applied to companies from the 1500s-1700s. Would anyone who has been a member of the British Worshipful Company of Clockmakers (est 1631) qualify? (Of course, that would be a very small subset of all watch/clock makers) Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Your question is something that can resolved. For example, by removing any entries that are just brand-names labels that buy from another source with their labels put on. (Though I'd make a distinction with those that assemble from stock components). For another example, take a look at List of automobile manufacturers. Obviously the details would require some knowledge of the subject, but I suggest taking it to the list's discussion page, and seeking input from other informed persons. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • As I said in my AfD commentary, I don't think trying to apply modern concepts of what a manufacturer is will work. As Demiurge points out, any such new definition would be WP:OR. I mentioned carmakers in my AfD so, yeah, I have looked at it quite a bit. Compared to watches, cars are a very modern invention and have a comparatively modern definition of what a "manufacturer" is. Also, as I mentioned in my AfD, these companies try very hard to hide just how much or how little they actually do to qualify as "manufacturers", which will make WP:VERIFY very hard to do and result in a lot of WP:OR for each company. There are far too many examples of "watch manufactures" that really were nothing other than a shell that sold watches with their name on it. See below where I talk about the "Advance" name. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
            • First, you seem confused about what OR is. Deciding the criteria on this list is not necessarily original research. All we really need is a reliable claim about the company that they make watches. Anything else is just a convenient restriction to what's useful for Wikipedia. Where that would be on Watch manufactures, I don't know, but this AfD is hardly the place to decide. If a company is just a "shell" then I think it would be clear they should be mentioned at most under the original company, assuming the brand itself is more or less notable. If something else, then that can be determined on a case by case basis. What you talk about Elgin doing with Advance is really no different than what many electronics and appliance companies do today. (For example, Sears has several brands, including Kenmore but they are manufactured by other companies from Maytag to LG). In any case, none of your arguments add up to deletion. They are merely concerns for the individual entries on the list itself. All of which can be resolved, if you commit yourself to doing so, not just giving up and throwing it in the wastebin. FrozenPurpleCube 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Funny you would use Sears as an example. R. W. Sears started out selling watches and hired a watchmaker named Roebuck. Their late 1800s-early 1900s advertising, at best, implied that they were watch manfacturers, even though they just resold things like Elign watches. Again, this would be considered acceptable at the time they did it. So, Sears certainly should be in a list of "watch manufacturers". I kind of doubt they would could reasonably be placed in a list of "washing machine manufacturers". Wrs1864 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Sounds like information to be added to this article then(at least in summary form). It might also help to round out the information in the article on Sears and Elgin Watch Company. (The Sears article does mention Watches, but not Elgin, or why Roebuck was hired, the Elgin article is itself pretty bare of content. And if somebody made a list of home appliance manufacturers, they would be silly not to put Kenmore on the list in every place that it was appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the long AfD to the contrary, none of the arguments presented indicate a grounds for deletion. All of this information should, if true, be included in the article on watchmakers or possibly at the top of this list, to inform folks. Deleting this list would accomplish nothing except the removal of potentially valuable information to folks. I don't know about you, but I prefer lists to categories myself. If you are concerned about the criteria, go to the talk page, establish some sustainable criteria, put it on the talk page, see if people accept it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What a nauseating linkfarm. The only way I can see this list being of any use whatsoever to Wikipedia is if inclusion criteria limiting it to companies which already possess articles on Wikipedia were both adopted and enforced, with the list page primarily serving as a honeypot to find newly-spammed articles. Category:Watchmakers is and would remain the tool that both our readers and our editors use; this unadorned list is harder to maintain, comparatively quite incomplete, and ridiculously prone to self-promotion. Unless someone is willing to commit to removing the two or three new redlinks and external links that people who ignore a nice, friendly <!-- Please do not add external links or entries that do not have an article. --> will put into the article every day, delete. —Cryptic 15:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless list. There is no encyclopedic value is providing a list of links.meshach 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is neither a directory nor "listcruft." Fg2 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, directory AND listcruft AND very lousy made. Mixes manufacturers (those who actually build) with resellers (those who put a brand label on a box). Contains pearls like Advance and "generic" names as Andy Warhol. Pavel Vozenilek 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
More, it contains names from a few Western countries. A really complete list of mere manufacturers would be huge. Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Advance is a great example! You dismiss it as if it wasn't a "watch manfacturer, but it almost certainly was represented as such. The Elgin National Watch Company made about 115,000 watches using the Advance name betwen 1875 and 1900. During this time, there were several recessions in the US and recessions hit watch companies hard since a good watch will last many decades and they are expensive. These Advance watches were made to much lower standards than Elgin's normal watches. Elgin also had a distribution system with jewelers such that everyone expected that Elgin would *never* sell direct to the public. Now, was the Advance name simply a name that Elgin used in order not to damage their own good name and sell direct to the public? Or, was it a shell corporation? Or, was it another company that contracted with Elgin? Besides the Elgin manufactured Advance watches, there are also examples made by the Trenton Watch Company. This could be evidence that the folks selling the Advance watches were separate from Elgin, or it could be that there were two companies with the same name.
All this happened "only" around 100 years ago. Lots of people are interested in this kind of trivial and have investigated it, but I am reasonably certain that no one alive today knows the answers to the above questions. What is clear to me, however, is that any list of "watch manufacturers" would need to include Advance, and that Andy Warhol watches are no less qualified to be in that list than Advance. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The Advance is dismabiguation page for a generic word. I pointed the approach this list was created - copy something, link every word, forget about it. If kept the list should be separated into the true manufacturers (they aren't that many - here's one from Czech lands [16]) and list of watch brands where marketeers could promote and battle. Pavel Vozenilek 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the Advance link being incorrect, in fact, I'd say there are rather a lot of them on this page once I converted it from external links to internal ones, but I felt it was more important to have it done and make it right than check each and every name for an existing article. Obviously, this list needs to be fixed even if kept, but that's a job for another day. FrozenPurpleCube 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. I have taken a hack at trying to clean this list up. Those that wanted to keep this list, please look at it and make sure what I did was acceptable. Those that wanted to delete this list, please look at it and see if it now is worth keeping. FrozenPurpleCube had previously gone through and replaced all external links with redlines, but I don't think that is a good idea because he didn't check to see if the external links were even notable watch companies. I think just creating redlines will simply encourage people to create advertising articles about the non-notable companies. Instead, I reverted his changes and removed all external links. I then went back and added in some of the more obvious notable watch companies and reorganized them into parent companies and brand names. I also deleted any internal links to articles that weren't about watch companies, but added in a few internal links to ones that had been omitted. I am certain I did not do a complete nor flawless job. However, I think this makes a much better basis for moving forward. Wrs1864 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've taken another hack on this. I have replaced the list with an exact copy of Category:Watchmakers since it was far more complete, didn't have double indirects, and linked to the right articles. I still don't see the purpose of having both a list and a category, but I guess some people like it that way. Wrs1864 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. Oh, and one advantage of this in list form is that it can be organized in various ways, such as by date, by country, or whatever. Whether that's worth doing, I don't know. We'll see. Glad to see you take up some of the work though. Kudos to you! FrozenPurpleCube 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because this list could be fairly usefull. If it gets too long, break it up.
  • Weak keep as potentially useful. 38.100.34.2 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Aksi_great (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightstreak

Nightstreak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be a work of complete fiction, part of an elaborate fictional history being created - Wikipedia is not a web host. Zero relevent google hits. Creator removed all prods without comment. Resolute 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating: Kyle Kain, Rhylin, Magnate Industries Resolute 07:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. all, WP:OR, WP:NOT -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per nom. SkierRMH 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems to have been made up one day. MER-C 08:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. VegaDark 09:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Also get rid of Jonas creek and Cal magnate redirects. --Charlene 10:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (edited for typo)
  • Delete per nom and a big WTF? after I read it. MikeWazowski 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. hateless 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wasting WP server space. --Oakshade 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (there's nothing there to merge). Proto::type 09:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woodlands Civic Centre

Woodlands Civic Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non notable commercial premises Nuttah68 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn busines, reads as bad ad. SkierRMH 08:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Woodlands, Singapore. Building not notable on its own, but being the hub for Wooodlands Regional Centre, with the library and housing board offices house there. It does assert some notability, so content still can be moved over. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Terence Ong. - Mailer Diablo 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, as above. But do not redirect, as there may be other "Woodlands Civic Centers" somewhere else. And, as a comment, there are probably several shopping centers in the U.S. with Wikipedia entries that are less notable than the subject of this article. 38.100.34.2 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shella * 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Morgan School for Girls

Julia Morgan School for Girls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Found in the speedy backlog, where it really doesn't fit. School with no particular claim to fame, written with a degree of POV expected from an article created by a student. Four cleanup tags and counting. Opabinia regalis 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom... NN school, reads like homework assignment. SkierRMH 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - unlike some schools, there's some reliable sources (subscription required) out there. MER-C 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MER-C and independent coverage, which should be incorporated into the article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This school is as notable as a new middle school could be. There's no notable alumnae to argue about yet, but as a unique school type (all-girls middle school) in an area of several million people, with major coverage in the NYT, Harvard Magazine, several Bay Area papers, and a book, it seems to pass any test that the school deletionists could come up with. I've fixed it up a little, and I'll continue if nobody else finishes it up first. --Hjal 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep But there are some good reasons for voting keep, other than the consensus here. One, the above sources quoted are reliable - Harvard and the New York Times, and the type of school is unique. If anyone wants to, I'd be willing to help re-write this article. --SunStar Net 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep In tha the NYT article about the school and other sources helps confer notability (given that the school is in California) per WP:SCHOOLS3 criterion 1, and yes I know that isn't a guideline but that criterion seems at least to me to be reasonable. JoshuaZ 20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep How many schools have a New York Times article and a book about them? Plus they have what is in this era a somewhat innovative program of all girls education. Not a run of the mill school at all. Edison 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the references this should not be on AFD. --JJay 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, school is notable, references are cited and are reliable. There's a lot of mention by major organisations, isn't that enough? --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. School is not notable. Yes, it's mentioned in a couple of articles, but it is not the subject of those articles. Valrith 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I think you may want to reread the NYT article. JoshuaZ 05:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sourced, passes WP:SCHOOLS3. Shimeru 06:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant coverage in the NYT and Harvard magazine is a clear demonstration of notability per WP:SCHOOL. Alansohn 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes both WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. I'd like to see it expanded and cleaned up a great deal, but the article is not suitable for deletion as it now stands. Trusilver 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above commenters, the school is notable and has references to show for it. Yamaguchi先生 03:30, 22 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep until a policy change is enacted. This article is verifiable, which is good enough for now. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elmhurst (Metra)

Elmhurst (Metra) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable: the article is about a small commuter train station in a suburb of a city, just one of hundreds of thousands of such stations in the world. TheSeven 07:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • So, why pick this one for AfD out of like a kajillion commuter railway station articles? Anyway, there's enough room in Union Pacific/West Line to merge the individual stations except for any particularly notable ones (eg: Ogilvie Transportation Center) into a list or table. Weak keep as there's already plenty of precedent for individual stations on notable rail lines having their own articles, although I still think a list merge wouldn't be a bad idea. Also, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nom since it was apparently selected at random, perhaps to make a point? Tubezone 08:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Elmhurst or Union Pacific/West Line SkierRMH 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep *ahem* Jordanhill railway station *ahem*. Looks like the the Pokémon test applies here. MER-C 08:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, though Jordanhill does have some peculiar notability to go with it (Wikipedia's millionth article). Keep for sure. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of a maintained and categorized system of station articles for a notable commuter rail system. Ample precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I assume that the nominator did not know that there's a good reason while railway and commuter rail stations tend not to wind up on AfD. Rail station articles are largely accepted, and any campaign to delete them would likely cause conflict and division.-- danntm T C 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Precedent is not necessarily binding, notability should be examined individually. This particular one does not seem to establish it even if others might. Certainly we don't need an individual article on every minor rail route in existence. "Someone might get irritated" is not a valid keep reason. Seraphimblade 14:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:AFDP, all rail stations are notable. There's no reason for this one to be singled out. --Oakshade 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia supposed to have an article about every commuter train station in the world? If not, then—since there is nothing else notable about this one—I think it should be deleted. If Wikipedia is supposed to, then that would be hundreds of thousands of articles. (Note: I am the nominator).  TheSeven 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually, there are thousands of train station articles, and there's a lengthy discussion going on User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about that very subject, the large number of station articles and their maintainability. IMHO, that's where this discussion should be headed, rather than arguing about the notability of stations on an AfD for one station. Still, at this time, precedent should decide the issue. Are you trying to make some kind of point? ;-) Tubezone 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentThe guideline WP:AFDP cited above says "Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [1]" This means there is no inherent right to maintain an article for each of the thousands or millions of them in the world for no apparent purpose. Edison 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment / Reply - I knew someone would say that. I'm actually part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations where we are trying to create an informative comprehensive collection of articles of stations from around the world. All of us don't simply want stations listed, but to have encyclopedic information of each station like its history and/or importance, for instances. Yes, just like Tubezone said above (better than I have, actually), there is a current ernest discussion at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about the standards of station inclusion, and even if there should by any standards. But as it stands now there's no reason to single out this station for AfD against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT) as no official WP outcome of that discussion has been reached. --Oakshade 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bus stops and train stations are not inherently notable unless multiple independent news stories or other indices of notability are provided which talk about the station in a nontrivial way. No function is served by copying everything from every directory in the world into a Wikipedia article which is soon out of date. A mention of the station could be made in an article about the transit system, with a link to their website for schedules and travel times. Edison 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That is your POV and not official WP policy or guideline (except for the bus stops bit - different subject) and you are free and encouraged to be part of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations and/or User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable regarding the inherent notability of train stations. --Oakshade 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply: I think that an important thing to note is that bus stops almost always get deleted at AfD, while train stations don't. Further, I agree that dumping the timetable into a Wikipedia article is unwise, to say the least. However, there can be much more to train stations then simply what time the trains come, such as there history, architecture, etc.-- danntm T C 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As precedent, at least until policy overrides this. Robovski 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Otherwise, in fairness, we would have to start deleting other train stations, such as the Bethesda metro. This is not a print encyclopaedia, where considerations such as saving paper are important. 38.100.34.2 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aksi_great (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesley (color)

Lesley (color) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(a) I cannot find any source to very this claim about a future event; it might be a hoax by a fan, but that isn't the key point because (b) even if I could, Wikipedia does not need to list every brand name chosen as a shade for every product made (consider the tens of thousands of names of shades of paint). Notinasnaid 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until such a time that this paint is released, it's not verifiable, violating WP:V. Even if it was, there's the question of notability to be addressed. --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If they're mentioning Bausch & Lomb that'll be a colour for spectacle lenses and contact lenses, not a paint. Whatever, delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very unlikely to be true: naming a product after a celebrity would mean paying royalty fees, and the obscurity of the celebrity in question would make that a highly unwise decision. Even if it is true, though, it's not worth an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources, and the article does even specify what point of the color horseshoe this new color is on.-- danntm T C 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It says This particular shade of Jade (color) resembles the actresses eye color. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Query: would it be appropriate for me to mention this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Color, since the article purports to be about a color? Notinasnaid 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Probably, although it shouldn't be considered necessary to notify the overseeing Wikiproject when nominating something. -Amarkov blahedits 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad crystal ball. -Amarkov blahedits 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per no crystal balls, nom as " WP = not an indiscriminate collection of information", unverifability, and probable non-notability. Nihiltres 20:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Actresses's eye color? Very doubtful about that. There's no cites or references or anything! Kyo cat(T)•(C) 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. One google hit (this article) for "Baush & Lomb" "Caroline Lesley". Were this genuine, I would expect to find press releases at least a year before production, which would already be well-advanced if the product were being sold 1Q 2007. —Cryptic 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems hoaxish. ReverendG 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delete please it might be a hoax and is not verifiable at all Yuckfoo 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, smells like a hoax. Katr67 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as fork of the history of deconstruction. If you want to see this "article" just pick it out of the history. No need to split the old version into its own article. Kimchi.sg 09:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstruction/Archive1

Deconstruction/Archive1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Incorrect use of the article space. This article was created after a complete rewrite of the Deconstruction article. The problem is that that's what the history is for. :) This should be userfied or deleted. Just no reason or purpose for it. Woohookitty(meow) 09:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong International School

The article contain a lot of unverifiable data. Nobody care to mantain the article and it is a constant subject of vandalism. Then vandals inserted obscenities I know it is vandalism. If the vandals change the name of the principal I have no way to check if it is a real info or a vandalism. I suggest deletion per WP:NOR Alex Bakharev 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The existence of the school is well verified, and there are independent sources about the school, including the United States Department of State [17]. It appears to me that most of the information present is available on the school website so I cannot really call the article original research. Even with quotes, Google gives a massive 32,300 hits, many of them relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Revert to a clean version - An article being vandalized is not a reason to delete. This is Articles for Deletion, not cleanup. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — Cleanup will suffice. — RJH (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs cleanup and improvement, but the fact that it has been vandalized is no justification for deletion. Alansohn 08:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is where requests for protection should go. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The greater problem with this article is the content, not any vandalism. The article content reads like a press release and contains little independent verification. Merely copying someone's promotional material does not meet the requirements of what an encyclopedia should be. MojoTas 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MojoTas (talk • contribs)
  • Keep My reservations about the notability of most schools aside, I don't really see this as a WP:NOR issue. Also, vandalism is not, in and of itself, a legitimate reason for the deletion of an article. Trusilver 01:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and semi-protect. a notable school in Hong Kong. Ohconfucius 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of the most distinguished shocols in Hong Kong. Yamaguchi先生 03:31, 22 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aksi_great (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awksglokin

Awksglokin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reads like original research. A single direct source given (Mental Floss) but I can't find any information at all on 'Dr. Boris Shleskin'. Zero ghits for 'Awksglokin'; no relevant ghits for 'The Ultimate Theory of Really Big Numbers'. The Hitchikers Guide connection is tenuous. Apologies in advance if this is notable and verifiable. Marasmusine 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pretty obvious and massive hoax, but move content first to WP:BJAODN. "Mental Floss" has never had an issue 22; "awksglokin" is not used in any field; HHGTTG does not mention it. Wikipedia is not for things made up after reading Douglas Adams one day. For one thing, Douglas Adams would have been funnier. --Charlene 10:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax and/or original research. Hello32020 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant hoax. And the lord said: Let there be crap!!! MartinDK 13:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MartinDK, just remember to flush! Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy delete: on the borderline between patent nonsense and complete bollocks. -- Ekjon Lok 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a theory that Deleting it will cause it to be replaced by something only more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory that this has already happened. Mishatx 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although according to something I read somewhere, it doesn't behave like other articles and would thus become a redirect to 1 (number). --WikiSlasher 09:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And lets hope it doesn't implode or something and create a whole new wikiverse. Marasmusine 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be somebody else's problem. --Charlene 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 11:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John boston

John boston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete: Article not important enough for WP. Snowman 11:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no specific assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as {{db-bio}}. feydey 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermann Simon

Bio written by Hesi who has contributed nothing else. Looks like self-promotion. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 11:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as an autobiography. MER-C 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up I think this has NPOV problems, but the web site it links to says "Simon has published over 30 books in 15 languages, including the worldwide bestsellers Hidden Champions and Power Pricing.". Seems solid for authors WP:BIO. I'll see if I can track down any of these 30.Obina 16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Amazon has 6 of his books. He gets up to $20K as a speaker too. Nice! Page just needs a deep clean up.Obina 17:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean up - Notable author, but the article needs rewriting. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:AUTO and there are no links to third-party coverage as required under WP:BIO. Sandstein 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Obina - but with a massive clean up. Reads like an advert - needs substantial trimming and re-writing. --TheOtherBob 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up, Simon is very well known in the field of pricing.
  • Weak delete: reads too much like a resumé. 38.100.34.2 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fearsome

Fearsome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested Prod, tag removed by page creator. Original Prod reason: Subject may not be sufficiently notable to merit an article, see notability guidelines. – Gurch 12:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not assert notability apart from a handful of awards, which are also of dubious notability. Demiurge 13:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing that makes this group particularly more notable then the hundreds of other sketch troupes out there--Twintone 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Save, Fearsome is one of the elite sketch comedy groups working in New York City, on the level of Olde English, Elephant Larry, and Wicked Wicked Hammerkatz, all listed on this site, and a few others who are not listed. By winning the Vital Funny Sketch Competition, Fearsome defeated the Wicked Wicked Hammerkatz. Acceptance to comedy festivals are rare, and the page has been updated to include the group's inclusion to multiple comedy festivals--AbbygoDabby, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hello AbbygoDabby. The remaining problem with the article is that the contents are not properly verified. Can you provide links to reliable, third-party published sources that confirm the info you added? Thanks, Satori Son 06:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Zimmerman

Michael Zimmerman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No evidence of notability or WP:RS. Leibniz 12:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Frivolous nomination. Googling "Michael E. Zimmerman" yields 13.700 hits. Philosophy professor at a major university with several widely cited books to his credit. Stammer 12:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a good number of published books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --- RockMFR 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Party of Warwick

Communist Party of Warwick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vanity article on a non-notable organisation. User has a history of creating such non-notable vanity/original research articles. Please see post #34 at [18], which explains that the author, "Peter Watson (of Warwick, Qld.) has claimed to represent all sorts of groups, and - in forums - likes to pretend he is several people at the same time. He has a habit of claiming to be the President of organisations he has made up on the internet. He says he is 14 (or 16) years old." —Psychonaut 12:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7. Tagged as such. Leibniz 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Agreed, meets A7 criteria. Hello32020 12:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. There's no assertion of notability. -Will Beback · † · 12:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 02:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sindre Rørstadbotnen

Sindre Rørstadbotnen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Junior/youth weightlifter. No significant achievements. 13 Google hits outside of Wikipedia. Punkmorten 13:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete almost a speedy but not quite. 14-year old weightlifter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. - Mike МиГ 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - article asserts that the subject has won a gold medal at national level, which seems to just squeeze into WP:BIO as people/athletes/competitors who have played ... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable. Author needs to provide sources fo the assertion. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • National level in Norway is nowhere near the highest level of the sport. Punkmorten 09:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Stallberg

I really appreciate all the work that this contributor is putting into the Saw pages, but minor characters like Paul (who have only appeared in for one scene) are not deserving of their own articles. CyberGhostface 13:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Rodriguez

Non-notable Saw character who only appeared for one scene. CyberGhostface 13:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed RichMac 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see why characters in one dramatic death scene need individual articles. Merge necessary info back to Saw (film) (or whichever film this guy is supposed to be from). Wavy G 22:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or just merge (conservatively) and redirect to Saw (film) per Wavy G. Postdlf 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Saw (film series). Danny Lilithborne 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Mark has been added to List of Saw Characters, so unless anyone else has any disagreements, I think the article, along with Paul Stallberg, Detective Kerry, Detective Tapp, Detective Steven Sing, and Zep Hindle can be deleted (All have been added to the page, and edited for grammer/spelling). JackOfHearts 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The main characters of the film deserve their own articles, but we can just delete this article and have and info box for Mark for the list of Saw characters. Either way, he's a minor character who had mmaybe 20 seconds of screen time.
  • Delete per nom Zero sharp 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. This was just nominated in October and shouldn't have been nominated again, but it passes again anyway. A case could be made for moving this to Wikispace, although I'm not sure what the mechanism would be for such a contested move. Herostratus 04:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airline destinations (2nd nomination)

Airline destinations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Creating page, since the user who put up the nomination never did so. DB (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep - this was voted on less than two weeks ago and the decision was strongly in favor of keeping it. DB (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I never got around to finishing this one, but it is cruft and a list of links. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as per Dbinder. - Mike МиГ 14:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Restatement of List of airports. - Mike МиГ 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read the previous discussion. It is not a restatement. Vegaswikian 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft-WP:NOT a directory. Seraphimblade 14:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is essentially a restatement of List of airports. wikipediatrix 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the previous discussion, the issue of being a restatement of List of airports never came up, and the arguments for keeping were mostly "Look at these other things!" Besides, "This was voted on 2 weeks ago" is not a criteria for speedy keep. -Amarkov blahedits 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually it did come up. It is not a restatement of the list of airports, since that list (supposedly) has every airport in the world. This is intended to show only those which have commercial service, and it serves both as a list and as a guideline for how to list airports in other destination lists. There is a discussion on moving it to project namespace. DB (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful information, all verifiable/notable, and this was just kept a few weeks ago. --- RockMFR 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Fails to point out the policy it does not follow which is requried as a second nomination. Also the List of airports was disucssed in the previous nomination. Anyone voting delete should first read the previous discussion and address the keep reasons there before voting delete. From my first comments A category is not a list and a list is not a category. The article serves several purposes. One is a list of airports that have had commerical service and not all airports. This is covered in the intro. The other is a source for listing an airport in other articles. Because of location and naming issues, it is not possible to create a guideline that covers this. So this list functions a source for this information. It also serves as a common point on the location of an airport in other destination articles. The order in this article is still being adjusted after several months of discussion as consensus is achieved. Vegaswikian 06:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC). Issues raised during the first discussion about size are being worked on but it takes time to set this up and achieve consensus. Vegaswikian 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, here is the previous discussion. DB (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move out of article namespace. This is useful to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines and WP:Airports projects but it does not rise to the level required per WP:NOT —Cliffb 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; this was just proposed and rejected two weeks ago, and pretty much every substantive issue came up in that AfD. Again, I'd urge renaming to List of cities with commercial airline service or List of airports with commercial airline service, probably the former. This is not at all synonymous with List of airports; only a small subset of airports have airline service. --MCB 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree that a rename is necessary. --- RockMFR 01:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - a meaningless list, and one which is unmaintainable. It's hard enough to keep per-airport and per-airline lists up-to-date. Also remember what Wikipedia is not. Thanks/wangi 00:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    As I mentioned in the first discussion, it's easy to maintain, since airports aren't constantly shifting back-and-forth from having and not having commercial service. It's much more difficult to maintain the individual lists within the airports, but few have argued that those should be removed. DB (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but there's a good reason for it; it belongs in project space. I'll do the move if anyone wants... --SunStar Net 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per VegasWikikian, this was only afd'ed a few weeks ago. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep... pretty weak, but still a KEEP -- There's a few concerns I have about this article, now that i look through it, but both Vegaswikian's arguments and a few things stated in the last afd have convinced me to keep it. I'm mostly concerned with the accuracy of the article. It's really a very difficult subject to really keep track of, and it will be very challenging for whomever moderates it to keep it accurate considering destinations are dropped left and right in the worldwide airline industry and in some low profile countries/airflines this may not be known for weeks. Also, the article's a bit large to scan through and comes off as disorganized, but that part can be fixed easily with some work. Still, I do see people coming on here to look for this information... the list of airports category and article contains every airport, commercial or not, while this list contains airports with commercial service, something I know is of interest to regular joes, and that itself makes it worth a keep; it's weak one on my part, but I may not change my vote unless something drastic happens. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
heh, ironically, firefox froze on me and had a shutdown error when I pressed the back button after posting my vote here because the list was that much of a burden on it. The list is just waaay too large, it needs to be cut down somehow, I'm still keeping though, but it really needs to be scaled down. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree on splitting it. We're actually working on that. The talk page has a discussion on how to organize the info. Once that's decided, it will be split. DB (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, wasn't it just a few weeks ago when I saw this on AFD? Useful and encyclopedic list, lists are not categories and vice versa. This list has its benefits and thus it should not be deleted. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was on AfD recently and the result as of 3-Nov-2006 was to keep it (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airline destinations). As for the argument that it is a "restatement" of List of airports: First, that isn't a list at all, it just contains links to other lists such as List of airports by IATA code or List of airports by ICAO code and categories such as Category:Lists of airports. Secondly, many countries do not yet have their own list of airports and the existing lists don't always indicate which airports have scheduled commercial airline service. I might support deleting this at some future date when every country has its own list of airports and those lists indicate which airports have scheduled airline service, but we're not there yet. I agree with the comments about the list being too large - it should be split into smaller lists, probably by continent. - Zyxw 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful, as it was a few weeks back. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but definitely not a speedy keep. 38.100.34.2 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move to list of airports, or Split to several lists, based on continents, but nice list of airports, generated from DB. --MaNeMeBasat 15:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We just had this AfD and the decision was keep, not no consenus. Useful and encylopedic list. --Oakshade 23:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to Multiply (website), and redirect to Multiplication. The reason I didn't move it to Multiply.com is that generally websites, and all pages for that matter, have the (brackets) to disabmiguify. If I am wrong on this, please move the page to Multiply.com - I didn't create the redirect so that if I am incorrect on this, it doesn't require Administrator intervention to delete the existing redirect. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiply

Multiply (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article doesn't make any claims to notability. I admit its Alexa rating is rather high, so there must be some kind of notability I'm missing here. Still, wouldn't it make more sense to redirect Multiply to Multiplication? Just seems a little out of sort. Brad Beattie (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Jpeob 20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fawaz Hussain

Fawaz Hussain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not seem to be notable or meet criterium for inclusion. Few unique google hits for this person, since search also shows lots of other names who are not this person. Khorshid 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Googling "Fawaz Husên" yields a couple of hundred hits, most of them in Turkish or Kurdish, often traceable to the subject's literary activity. WP:BIAS is clearly relevant here. Stammer 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Regretfully 200 google hits in Kurdish and Turkish is not enough for WP:BIO. Khorshid 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Regretfully — WP:BIO doesn't have any rule that states that there is an amount of google hits one needs to pass to be on Wikipedia and if we had that that would of been stupid wouldn't it? Ozgur Gerilla 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Just because some nations were not able to advertise themselves on Google is not our business. Please see systemic bias. We have shorter articles about fictional Pokemon and Star Wars characters and planets, so please keep things in context while keeping in mind the issue of systemic bias. Baristarim 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I guarentee you that, if Kurds were a more wealthier nation who could all afford computer and DSL Net access at their homes and all spoke English perfectly, you would be getting much more hits. That's all I am saying, I don't know this guy or his works, but we shouldn't be deleting an article just because the guy is not on google. Baristarim 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Why are you replying to yourself? 2) There is "criteria of notability" on WP, see WP:BIO -its not just about google but also 3rd-party sources. this guy is just a prof - see WP:PROF Khorshid 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I was not replying to myself!! I was talking to Savas, the other guy who possesses my brain from time to time. Hey, wait a minute? (Baris=peace, Savas=war) :)))) Baristarim 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh great, here he goes ... this is called "wikistalking" Khorshid 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Argue on content, not on people. Is there something wrong with what my post above? I also have a right to browse wiki, and in the likelihood that we run into each other, I also have a right to voice my opinion. This is not relevant, argue on content and not people. Baristarim 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL You are excused Khorshid 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is notable in Kurdish literature because he has translated works of Albert Camus and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry into Kurdish.Heja Helweda 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That doesnt make him notable according to WP:BIO and WP:PROF. He's just a translator (and a professor yes?) Should I create an article for every Persian translator of English literature?? Will you vote keep when they put it up for AFD? Khorshid 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The first persian translation of The Little Prince was done by Mohammad Ghazi. I beleive there should be anarticle about him, as he is also very important. Moreover I have not created articles for all Kurdish translators, but only for the important ones.Heja Helweda 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the English Wikipedia has scores of articles on English authors and translators, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to exclude this author. Khorshid, I would ask you to keep it more civil and less personal.--Prosfilaes 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per concensus, as well as being withdrawn by nominator. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Box Tour

Music Box Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Google turns up few (more precisely no, that I can find) hits aside from fan sites. While the artist is certainly notable, the tour seems not to be-better handled on her page or deleted, as reliable sources regarding this seem to be in short supply or nonexistent. Sourced after all, appears I was incorrect. Please withdraw nom. Seraphimblade 14:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. This article is just getting started, as work is progressing on all of the Category:Mariah Carey tours articles. Having an article on a major artist's tour is no different than having an article on an album or a hit single, of which Wikipedia has zillions. There are about 275 tour articles now on Wikipedia, see Category:Concert tours. Mariah Carey tours as a whole are in fact more notable than many, because she tends to play outside her native country more than most U.S. artists and she tends to play in unusual regions of Asia, the Middle East, and so forth for a U.S. act. There is no reason to delete this article; with it, it completes the coverage of the six Carey tours to date. Wasted Time R 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, and disclaimer-I'm also strongly against "albums are notable enough for an article just because the person who wrote them is." A lot of albums would be better handled on the artist's page. However, that aside, it doesn't seem that this tour is notable or reliably sourced, even though her later ones seem to be. Seraphimblade 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In fact, there are non-fan-page sources on this tour, since it was given poor reviews by newspaper critics and written about in the Shapiro Mariah Carey biography. The Mariah Carey main article mentions this and gives a book cite for it. The bad reception is part of the reason she avoided playing in the (continental) U.S. for several subsequent tours, and so is important to describing the arc of her career. This article has just begun and needs work, but that is no reason for deletion. Wasted Time R 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment Please note that I now have a significant number of non-fan-page sources for this article, and I believe I have also conclusively demonstrated the tour's notability, as it gained a lot of national media attention at the time as well as having an effect on Carey's subsequent career. Wasted Time R 00:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • [implicit Keep] At first it was not fully completed it still is not it has a lot more information there are a lot of concert tour pages I do not think this one should be deleted. Interestedscholar 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. Velten 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KiwiLyrics

Delete - Prod'd, but has already survived an AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Link to old deletion discussion page is broken, not sure how this ever survived an AfD, and can't find out! In any case, delete as non-notable website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've linked the previous afd above; it was typo'd on the article's talk page. Of the two keep votes (omission of ! deliberate) there, one is a classic WP:ILIKEIT from a user of the site, claiming that it was "fast-growing" (i.e., not yet notable, but someday it may be!) and that it's "heavily linked" (though it should not be linked to from Wikipedia at all, as we should not link to copyright infringements). As for the other, I'd repeat Uncle G's mantra that counting google hits isn't research, but this vote didn't even bother to count them. Of the 98 unique results that Google found for kiwilyrics, I didn't notice a single one from a reliable source. Plenty of forum posts, blogs, and SEO, though.

    Were it not for the previous afd, the article as it currently stands would be a clear WP:CSD#A7 candidate, as it makes no assertion of any sort of notability. Nor does it cite any third-party sources. There isn't even any primary source linked for any of the article except for the digression in the third paragraph. With the site gone, and nothing promising showing up on google (did I miss something at all usable?), the article is and seems likely to stay unverifiable. Certainly it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Delete. —Cryptic 15:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and Cryptic. --Charlene 17:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator the first time around. Punkmorten 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as prodder. HawkerTyphoon 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eva Green M5 motorway controversy

I believe this article is a probable hoax, as I can find nothing on any search engine, nothing in the newspaper archives, no ghits. No sources have been given for this article either, so it's a probable hoax. SunStar Net 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as probable WP:BLP violation. Unsourced and I can't find any reference to this either. And even if it's true (which is probably isn't), there's no need for it to have its own article; it can simply be mentioned in the article on the actress. 23skidoo 15:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per 23skidoo. wikipediatrix 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, skidoo is right as always. --Yamla 15:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as fantasy and per 23skidoo. --Metropolitan90 16:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per skidoo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. There is about as much call for this being here as there is for a dead fish. ><Richard0612 UW 19:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Mathematical Olympiad Preliminary Selection Contest - Hong Kong

Non-notable lower-level competition. Seraphimblade 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I cannot imagine why International Mathematical Olympiad would want this, and I do not see anywhere else to merge. Septentrionalis 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unhelpful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the article IMO selection process, there are also "regional" competitions for selecting IMO team members, like Vlaamse Wiskunde Olympiade in Flanders, Olympiade Mathématique Belge in the French Community of Belgium and the Indian National Mathematics Olympiad in India. While these competitions deserves their own articles, I cannot see the point why International Mathematical Olympiad Preliminary Selection Contest - Hong Kong does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Splee (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment I think these would be better deleted (or merged back into IMO selection process), but as it would be bad faith to add more articles to this discussion after votes have taken place here, I'd ask you to comment on why this particular subject is notable. "Someone else got to do it" is not a notability criterion. Seraphimblade 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment A lower level competition to the IMO, like this one, may be also a top-level competition in the region. For example, you may also notice that APMO (which is a regional international competition on its own) results are used to select final candidates in New Zealand. Moreover, with the query 國際數學奧林匹克香港選拔賽, its name as on the, it yields 4990 results on Google.com.hk. (my search) Therefore, I think it should be kept. Splee 13:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to consider a merge, but all you need in the main article is a mention. Vegaswikian 06:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. No assertion of notability, advertisement; in addition, no indpendent sources. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escondido Tutorial Service

Escondido Tutorial Service (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non-notable tutoring service. 355 unique Ghits. Fails WP:CORP and WP:SCHOOL (although it's not a school, despite having been categorized there). wikipediatrix 14:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This service qualifies for as notable under the following catagories for schools.


WP:SCHOOL #3 Many ETS students have performed very well in the national debate championships held by ncfca.org- notably the 2005 national speech champion, Amy Scofield. Three ETS students have been finalist in the national spelling bee, including Evelyn Blacklock- 2nd place 2003
WP:SCHOOL #4 The ETS program is unique in that is offers a five year Great Books program taught from a biblical perspective over the internet use live conferencing through webex. ETS was also one of the first institutions offering live conferenced classes for homeschoolers over the Internet.
WP:SCHOOL #6 ETS graduate Becky Perry recently co-authored the cover story for WORLD magazine at just 23 years of age.
WP:SCHOOL #7 The ETS facility is timberframed. Please see http://www.gbt.org/yearbook/ , http://www.gbt.org/yearbook/wesolekfling2003/daythreeb/DSC_0259.JPG and http://www.gbt.org/yearbook/wesolekfling2003/dayfoura/DSC_0264.JPG User:Fischerfritzusa

Full disclosure: Former student here, I put up an article because it serves as an umbrella for other online tutoring programs. Some possible sources for WP:SCHOOL: Homeschool World Magazine There is some local news coverage including an article in the north county times, an article in the New York Times Technology Section as well. [19] (link requires registration)--BigCow 19:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. This is NOT a school and miserably fails WP:CORP.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. This is not a school, and any school-related proposed guidelines don't apply to it, but it is still a non-notable company. It reads like an ad, as well. --Coredesat 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum I removed it from the online school category since it isn't a school. --Coredesat 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Criteria #1 for WP:CORP is that a company or corporation is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. I believe I can establish at least three publications which have written about it, including the homeschooling magazine and the NYT, how many would you consider to be neccessary?--BigCow 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The magazine article is not about the company itself. It's about the use of computers in homeschooling, and it just gives the company a passing mention. The NYT article is essentially the same thing, and the only mention of this company is: "...said Mr. Hinrichs...who founded Escondido Tutorial Service close to five years ago." Two of the references in the article are not third-party sources, and the third one doesn't mention this company at all. That doesn't cut it for WP:CORP. --Coredesat 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete copyvio from [20]. Kimchi.sg 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acoes

Deprodded by creator. 12 UNIQUE/35 total googlehits appear to mostly be the University's or the Acoes's webpages. No assertion of notability in the article other than using the word "notable." [Lots of hits, many not in English for "Acoes", which appears to be a word in other languages. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Kept due to nomination withdrawal. I take this as a non-controversial close. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zaytuna Institute

Zaytuna Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Probably should be speedied: the article consists of nothing but one external link. wikipediatrix 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I have restored the "unsourced garbage" so we can debate the article at its fullest. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdraw. I just discovered that the entire article had been blanked out by User:Opiner. Article still needs sources but now seems to be legit. wikipediatrix 15:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illiana Christian High School

Non-notable religious school. No source given for the article's claim of accreditation. 223 unique Ghits. Fails WP:SCHOOL. wikipediatrix 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Lansing, Illinois article, unless expanded. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable school, and there isn't anything that could be merged other than that the school exists. TJ Spyke 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability, no relevant articles to merge into. Trusilver 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Denni talk 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, no content to speak of. Might even be speediable as a restatement of the article title. Shimeru 22:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Would even fail the fail WP:SCHOOLS, would fail the recent proposal of WP:SCHOOLS3. Has no non-trivial sources about the school. Aside from existence fails WP:V even before we get to actual issues of notability (which it fails also). JoshuaZ 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the only relevant policy, which is verifiability. I don't see evidence the school is recognized by the state (for instance I didn't find an "eReport Card" with the state's BoE). --Rob 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. ReverendG 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Lansing, Illinois. There does not seem to be enough content at this point to create an article in compliance with WP:SCHOOL. The little useful information and link should be merged into the municipality article. Alansohn 08:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone above, especially the nom and JoshuaZ. -- Kicking222 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and JoshuaZ. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Audiobooks 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lansing, Illinois. This is a single sentence article an would almost qualify under candidates for speedy deletion article #1. Yamaguchi先生 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not even enough substantive/referenced information to perform a merge. Seraphimblade 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentium 5

The article is about nothing; about a thing that some people speculated would exists, but which never actually existed, and now given the new intel policy is very unlikely to ever exist; about rumours with unconfirmed sources. Also, see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. MureninC 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per my nomination MureninC 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Pentium Brand and MureninC, you don't need to vote and nominate. It is usually understood. FrozenPurpleCube 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, I was just a bit confused to see other people both nominate and vote in their nominated articles recently, hence my own vote... We have some bad trends, I guess. :) MureninC 20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the article that FrozenPurpleCube wants this redirected to is actually called Pentium brand. --65.95.18.64 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, silly me, I didn't even notice. Thanks for pointing that out. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is hardly anything worth saving here. DHR 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless, utterly pointless. ReverendG 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: This article is about something that doesn't exist. No meaningful content = patent nonsense. --Howrealisreal 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yaaḵoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School

Yaaḵoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable "alternative" school, gets 48 unique Ghits. "In recent years, the school has hosted nearly 100 students." Hmmm. wikipediatrix 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. It sounds to me like this school "has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools", especially given its Tlingit language name, which renders it worthy per the proposed WP:SCHOOL. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources, claim to notability weak at best. A non-English name does not constitute a "unique program" -- if there is in fact such a program (currently the only potential claim of such is "less mainstream high school experience"), it needs to be dealt with in a little more detail and sourced. Currently fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:V. Shimeru 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:SCHOOLS3 has no basis or justification for use as a Wikipedia guideline as it has never been presented for review and approval by Wikipedia users, let alone reached consensus as a basis for any purpose in Wikipedia. The failure to make the most trivial investigation of this program that is derided as a "unique program" solely because of its non-English name seems to be blatant prejudice. Questioning the existence of teh program only proves that this entire vote is baseless. Alansohn 10:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Reading prejudice into a factual statement ("A non-English [school] name does not constitute a unique program") is a personal attack, and shows bad faith. Desist. As for the program, as you are very well aware, there was no evidence within the article that one existed at the time I cast my !vote, and I reject your attempt to obscure the issue through barely-veiled accusations of racism. Furthermore, I do not feel that any reliable sources have yet been provided that show it is in fact a "unique program." Finally, WP:SCHOOLS3 has at least as much justification for use as WP:SCHOOLS. Shimeru 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment You can try to spin "A non-English name does not constitute a "unique program" -- if there is in fact such a program" as being a good faith disagreement with the qualifications of the article, but to any reasonable person it comes off as a patronizing dismissal of the schools' program. I sincerely hope it's mere ignorance and not prejudice, and I hope that your protests are justified. Unlike the far more thoroughly developed WP:SCHOOL, WP:SCHOOLS3 has received no review or any consideration whatsoever from Wikipedia users as a guideline. As it has made no attempt at all at reaching consensus within the Wikipedia community, it can't possibly be justified for use as a guideline, and the extreme deletionist bias it demonstrates makes it unlikely to ever be a basis for a consensus guideline. Do the facts provided in the current article satisfy your concerns? Alansohn 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • There is no spin involved, but since you've already shown you're not prepared to assume good faith, I won't waste my time with you further. I simply ask that you refrain from any and all speculation upon my motives in the future, and repeat my request that you cease to use such terms as "ignorant" and "prejudiced" to describe me. On the other topic, as you realize, SCHOOLS3 is newer than SCHOOLS; this does not mean it is not valid, and, unlike SCHOOLS, it has not been rejected. When it is presented, then we will see. Finally, I thought I had made this clear, but no, the current article does not meet my concerns. I do not feel that reliable sources have been provided that show that the program is "unique." Shimeru 11:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-existant notability. And I agree, a non-English name does not fulfill the requirements of a "unique program". I would need to see considerably more from this article to reverse my vote. Trusilver 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Shimeru and Trusilver. JoshuaZ 08:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to tentative keep One of the articles about the school's program did make it to the AP wire. I'd prefer more but this is getting there. JoshuaZ 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge, I don't see why you shouldn't allow us to read about high schools, alternative or not. Kappa 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Is there a guideline or policy based keep in there. WP:V is non-neogtiable among other issues. Claims that somehow deletion would be akin to some amorphous group not allowing another amorphous group to "read about highschools" is unhelpful and unproductive. JoshuaZ 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It's far better than the deletionist elitist "no schools are notable" approach that seems to be infecting recent school AfD's. Alansohn 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The school offers a substantially unique program aimed at serving students at greatest risk of dropping out of high school. A significant part of the program focuses on the Tlingit culture and language used by the many Native American students who attend the school and are at greatest risk of falling through the cracks, which addresses criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. The school and its programs have also been the subject of several reports in major local newspapers, in fulfillment of criterion 1 of WP:SCHOOLS, with sources that are reliable and verifiable, in compliance with WP:RS and WP:V. As such, the article meets and exceeds the WP:SCHOOL criteria for retention. Use of "scare quotes" for "alternative" in the nomination and "unique program" regarding the non-English name are patently offensive and a sign of ignorance for those who are willing to delete anything they are unwilling to attempt to do the most basic research. Alansohn 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "Unique program" is a direct quote of WP:SCHOOL. And please avoid veiled personal attacks. Shimeru 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't even call it veiled, it's pretty direct and obnoxious. wikipediatrix 13:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-referenced article on alternative high school fully qualifies for inclusion. Nominator has not provided any valid deletion reason (i.e. google hits or student numbers are not grounds for deletion). --JJay 13:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
When I say "non-notable", that means non-notable for inclusion. And our guideline for inclusion in this case is, of course, WP:SCHOOL (if we choose to accept it). wikipediatrix 13:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
In that event, I assume I could have just typed "Notable school" and that would have been a sufficient argument for inclusion. I would ask that in the future you explain in detail what you mean by "non-notable" because I don't have a clue. In the present case, it would seem that the school's focus on Tlingit culture [21], as well as other independent coverage [22] means that it is fully within the scope of our non-existent school guidelines. --JJay 13:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The "news coverage" is all local papers and it's a given that any school is going to get some sort of mention in their community papers. Also, none of the links to them are accessible, but from the titles, it's clear that the school is not even the primary subject of all these articles. wikipediatrix 14:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The coverage is from both the Alaska state capital's largest newspaper and the state's largest publication. Where is this "no local coverage" criteria you've presented come form? There is no mention of it in the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard that appears throughout Wikipedia and is very well defined at WP:CORP and WP:BIO. You can sign up, as I did, for online access to the Juneau Empire, but "easy clickability" is not a requirement of WP:RS or WP:V. If you read the articles in question they all directly reference the school and its programs. Alansohn 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow! You can't read the articles at all, but you can divine they're content from the titles. Read the article first, and then you can question their validity. I will acknowledge that if any of the sources include constitute trivial coverage, then I would be unable to use them to prove notability. See WP:CORP for the definition of trivial coverage as "newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." I will even add sports scores to the trivial coverage criteria for schools. If any article fails this criteria, please let me know and I will withdraw my claim. Alansohn 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, if you have not read the sources, you should not speculate on their contents. I have read both articles, and the school is either the exclusive or primary focus of both. Second, there is no policy basis for your comment on "local sources". I sugggest you review WP:RS. Third, your characterization of these sources as "local", implying that they are somehow subpar, is inaccurate and highly disrespectful to residents of Alaska. The Anchorage Daily News has the highest circulation of any Alaska newspaper. The Juneau Empire ranks third. --JJay 14:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The school serves students at risk of dropping out, about half of whom are from racial and ethnic minorities and the fact that it teaches the culture and language of the Tlingit make it notable in my opinion. However, I have seen no such verification of this from any source but their own website. Per WP:V this needs to be confirmed, and without confirmation the article cannot stand. This is savable, but without saving it should be deleted. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment See the current version of the article, which includes sources such as 1. ^ School district plans to double Yaakoos quarters: The alternative school serves about 100 students and graduates about 40 each year, Juneau Empire, May 17, 2005; 2. ^ Group helps schools infuse Native themes into curriculum, Anchorage Daily News, February 27, 2005; 3. ^ Ceremony honors Native students: Students benefit from more high school options, Juneau Empire, May 21, 2006; 4. ^ Students complete domestic violence education program: Alaska has one of the highest rates of such abuse in the nation, Juneau Empire, October 20, 2006. These sources come from the largest newspaper in the state capital (the Juneau Empire, the third highest circulation in the state) and the largest in the state (the Anchorage Daily News). All your concerns regarding WP:V are more than satisfied. Alansohn 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Three of those citations require registering to view. I know it is free, but I don't like making hundreds of accounts all over the internet to look up references. They require an e-mail address and I end up getting more spam. Perhaps this information is available on an open website? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In trying to improve the article and provide the verifiable, reliable sources that WP:RS and WP:V require, I was forced to use a source that requires registration. If anyone is concerned that the sources do not exist or do not accurately reflect an in-depth review of the school's unique program, I would be more than happy to cut and paste the articles and send them to you. Alansohn 17:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed to weak keep because references do not need to be instantly accessable online to be valid. A book in a library can be a reference, so why not a newpaper article that is not instantly accessable online. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Do you have a substantive reason why this school is notable? Note that adding exclamation points doesn't make the assertion any more convincing. JoshuaZ 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think he meant notable school!!! as per our notability guideline and the lengthy discussion above. Hmmm. Ok, he didn't actually provide a long, detailed explanation of notable school!!!, but then neither did the nom who wrote "Non Notable alternative school". Neither did you when you wrote: Delete per nom. Shimeru and Trusilver. Instead of hassling other editors over their use of punctuation, which is "unhelpful and unproductive", perhaps you would care to provide a "substantive reason", i.e. policy based, why this school, despite the references, fails WP:V!! --JJay 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the nom, Shimeru and Trusilver summarized the matter well? WP:V isn't all the matters. If it were we'd have articles on every single common murdered and the victime. WP:N matters and I have yet to see any independent sources discussing this school in a way that demonstrates notability. If sources that actually say that the language and cultural material is notable then I'll change to keep. JoshuaZ 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment:Yes, of course, the nom summarized things well with a comment restricted entirely to google hits and student numbers, both of which have no bearing on inclusion. You are certainly entitled to contest that the references "actually say that the language and cultural material is notable". However, if that is your position, I have to assume that you have not perused the sources, which discuss the infusion and public funding of Tlingit language and cultural studies into a school that consists largely of Alaskan minorities. I encourage you to do so, unless you have decided that WP:V and WP:N are not important here, which is certainly your right. However, in that case, I would ask that you not challlenge users such as Audiobooks who have formulated arguments in keeping with wikipedia policy. --JJay 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The references are purely routine local coverage. Now, while you may argue that they are in some sense not local that is more because Alaska is large and sparsely populated than anything else. I have seen no indication that anyone outside the immediate area has considered this to matter at all. JoshuaZ 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I won't address your comment's elitist and vaguely ethnocentric undertones and denigration of large, sparsely populated areas as somehow unworthy of our attention. I will ask that you: (i) point me to the policy, guideline or essay (yes, even including your schools3 essay) that precludes "local" sources; (ii) provide some proof that Alaska's leading newspapers (all available worldwide through the internet) qualify as "local" sources not suitable for wikipedia. --JJay 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete another wholly nn school. Eusebeus 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the commenters above, specifically for offering a substantially unique program aimed at serving students at greatest risk of dropping out of high school. Yamaguchi先生 03:33, 22 November 2006
  • Keep, sources 1 and 4 provide enough substantive information for an article. Seraphimblade 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, very useful and interesting article. Unfocused 08:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep: if the school is accredited, then keep; if not accredited, then delete. 38.100.34.2 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, frivolous nomination. Add references or remove contentious unreferenced bits for accuracy, but it's silly to say that this should be deleted. Already plenty of sources and it's verifiable. Cowman109Talk 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlayStation 3

This article is receiving far too much press. There are numerous unsourced facts, and grammar mistakes are everywhere. We simply do not need this article, as the news stories and websites are enough. --Brokendowntoyotacamry 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. If you think you can make it better by adding references and fixing grammar mistakes, then please do so. Deleting the article isn't the way to go. Chronos 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, this is either a bad-faith nom or a severely confused one. wikipediatrix 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a video gaming website!! --Brokendowntoyotacamry 15:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valentine Elementary School

Valentine Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable private school with one teacher, gets 149 unique Ghits. Fails WP:SCHOOL. wikipediatrix 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Note to closing administrator: Contrary to the false information listed in the nomination, this is a public school with 687 students and dozens of teachers; it is NOT a "private school with one teacher". All votes below with the content "per nom" have demonstrated that they did not bother to actually read the article as part of the most fundamental obligation of an AfD. Alansohn 09:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The article clearly states in plain English: "There is only one teacher." I consider this user's hypertensive attacks here and on other AfDs to be an extremely bad-faith disruption to Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The nomination says it's a "private school": FALSE; In a discussion of class structure, the article said "There is only one teacher". Most read it and interpret it to mean "per class" the nominator decided that it meant "in the entire school". The phrase that has caused so much misinterpretation has been removed. Given these facts, the nomination does not have any factual basis to stand on, and should be withdrawn. Alansohn 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Edgecution 18:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like most schools, this one does not appear to the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability. Several points: (1) Yes, it received a California Distinguished Schools award for which it was recognized in the local paper. No, this recognition does not confer encyclopedic notability. The local paper article itself is trivial (<100 words), 5 other schools were recognized in the same article for receiving the same award, and the only material concerning Valentine Elementary is a 2-sentence quote from the principal. Because there is no non-trivial independent coverage of Valentine receiving this award, it doesn't show notability. (2) Now, it might be argued that all schools receiving the California Distinguished Schools award are somehow intrinsically notable, whether non-trivial sources exist or not. I would argue strongly against that. 377 California schools received it in 2006 alone, and a school can re-apply to receive it every four years. The award doesn't truly distinguish its recipients a la the Oscars; it's a pat on the head from the California state government to well-performing schools. No wonder there is no non-trivial independent coverage of Valentine receiving this "award." (3) Finally, yes, there is a government report on this school (filled with statistics, bromides, and mundane facts). Regardless of content, government reports don't show notability, as their publication has nothing to do with notability, but with accountability of government schools. Pan Dan 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - in the immortal words of Elaragirl, go and sit in the corner until your notability grades improve. Moreschi 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In the immortal words of Alansohn, are you justifying your deletion by appealing to Wikipedia standards and guidelines, or just wasting our time? Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Denni talk 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: WP:SCHOOLS3 is a talking forum for deletionists to concoct the most arbitrary and meaningless standards to ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia. WP:SCHOOLS3 has not been presented to the Wikipedia community for approval and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify deletion of an article. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:SCHOOLS3 also has the participation of some school inclusionists. What you fail to note is that this project represents the work of those inclusionists and deletionists who seek some kind of common ground and an end to the divisiveness the schools issue has caused. The proposal is neither arbitrary nor meaningless: the criteria have been well thought out to ensure they meet the same standards as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, and other standards that ensure that aricle subjects meet certain basic criteria. It keeps in motion a process that began over a year ago, and is most explicitly not designed to "ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia". What it does seek to ensure is that those school articles meet certain standards, and there are plenty that do. I would also note that proposals become policy in part through use. I intend to continue to refer to this proposal in school-related AfDs, and I intend to keep pressing the Wikipedia community for a resolution to an issue that is being kept alive in part through bloody-minded stubbornness. Denni talk 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pan Dan. Also unsourced and fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Shimeru 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sources have been added to document the school's explicit claim of notability and to address your concern. Again, WP:SCHOOLS3 is a talking forum for deletionists to concoct the most arbitrary and meaningless standards to ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia. WP:SCHOOLS3 has not been presented to the Wikipedia community for approval and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify deletion of an article. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Yes, sources have been added to the article. No, none of them is non-trivial. Whatever attributes this school has, you can only argue that they are claims to notability if non-trivial independent sources have taken note, so to speak, of those attributes. But there are no such sources in this case. Pan Dan 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The school has been recognized twice with the California Distinguished School award, the highest award granted to schools' in the state by the California Department of Education, which satisfies "Significant awards or commendations", criterion 5 of WP:SCHOOL. As the school was founded in 1938, the school meets the 50-year test of criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. As such, the school meets and exceeds the notability standards of WP:SCHOOL and should be retained. Use of "scare quotes" to denigrate this "award" are unjustified and offensive. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:SCHOOLS is a failed attempt to establish a guideline and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify inclusion of an article. Also, use of "ad hominem attacks" to denigrate objections to this award are unjustified and offensive. Shimeru 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It's hard to take you seriously when you refer to the completely meaningless WP:SCHOOLS3 as an excuse for deletion, while blithely brushing off WP:SCHOOL. WP:SCHOOL is the only productive attempt at achieving consensus, and failed solely because of the interference and obstruction of school deletionists. WP:SCHOOL3 is a pointless, non-viable effort that makes no effort at achieving consensus and will never be useful for any purpose if there is meaningful movement towards reflecting the views of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users who have a broader definition of school notability than the hyper-narrow definition concocted at WP:SCHOOL3. Pointing out that the nominator misread the article and that two sheep blindly followed along is evidence of a basic violation of AfD practice, not an attack on the individuals. If you have an alternative explanation for this blatant discrepancy I'd love to hear your story. Alansohn 10:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • You're entitled to your opinions, but I suppose we can now count out any good-faith efforts to contribute to reaching that consensus at SCHOOLS3. I'd hoped for better from an editor of your stature, especially after you seemed to acknowledge that that WP:SCHOOLS4 disruption of yours was counterproductive. And "Two sheep blindly followed" is "not an attack on the individuals"? As for the "discrepancy," it might be because the article itself claims "There is only one teacher," maybe? It seems perhaps you didn't read the article. Shimeru 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I've tried to make constructive suggestions there, and will continue to do so in the vain hope that anyone will listen, but it's clear that WP:SCHOOLS3 is NOT a serious effort to reach consensus; it's a fig leaf for deletionists to concoct what has the appearance of a guideline that is developed by the most extreme elements who believe that only a handful of schools in the world might be notable. WP:SCHOOL is still the only serious effort to reach a middle ground. Do you truly believe that these two "per noms" read the article in question? Of course I saw the statement that "There is only one teacher". I read it and interpreted it to mean "per class". Others saw several hundred students and misinterpreted it to mean "in the entire school". Which interpretation did you come to and which makes more sense? At least you had the intellectual integrity to ditto the nomination of someone who did his homework in evaluating the quality and merit of the article. You can't possibly tell me that the two "per noms" did the same. Alansohn 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
            • The thought processes, intelligence, integrity and good-faith motivations of other editors have nothing to do with the matter of hand. Please avoid dragging these red herrings into your arguments. wikipediatrix 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course they matter and you agree that they do. Why do you and others challenge those who specify "Keep - All schools are notable"? Alansohn 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Because, fact is, they're not, any more than all ships, all roads, all people, or all buildings are notable. It is completely ridiculous to include articles on schools which have no significant history, no notable students or staff, no non-generic programs, and no notability beyond "that's where my kids go to school". I would also point out that WP:SCHOOLS was not torpedoed by deletionists - I was part of the discussion and I know. It was sunk by the intransegence of inclusionists such as Nicodemus and Kappa, who were unwilling to compromise beyond the point that it =might= be acceptable to merge schools with their parent boards, and in the end refused to participate at all. Several deletionists were involved in the discussion, but for the most part, all were willing to cede that there were some schools which were worthy of articles. This issue will not be resolved by calling names or adhering to a policy that "all schools are notable". You can choose to be part of the discussion or you can choose not to. Regardless, it is still going on, and WP:SCHOOLS3 is the best compromise at the moment. Denni talk 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • (Reply to Alansohn's original comment) (1) Your argument to keep relies on WP:SCHOOL, which does not enjoy consensus approval. The fact remains that there is no non-trivial independent coverage of either this school or of its receiving the "award." (2) "Use of 'scare quotes' to denigrate this 'award' are unjustified and offensive" -- first, I didn't denigrate the "award," I demonstrated that it's really an indicator of a good school; it's not a truly distinguishing award. But hey, don't take my word for it--look for non-trivial independent coverage of the school's receiving it. Such coverage doesn't exist. Pan Dan 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article on worthwhile topic. There's sufficient history to sustain an article (though doing so, takes time). Not all information instantly appears with Google, which the nom seems to assume. Also, I'm disturbed that the nom hasn't admitted to stating falsehoods, even though these falsehoods were identified before the nom's last comments. This is a public school, but the nom claimed it was private. It has 30 teachers, but the nom suggested it had only one. It seems the nominator based his nom on these two facts. Now anybody can make a mistake, and the nom's free to claim other reasons for deletion. But the nom hasn't properly addressed his errors. Simply saying "I was mistaken" would have earned some respect. Its not the mere fact of mistake (which we all make), but the fact he's had these errors pointed out, and has failed to acknowledge them, but has instead made other comments since. Also, the nom needs to understand what types of "attacks" are not allowed. *Personal* attacks are not allowed. However, attacking false information is certainly allowed. --Rob 17:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Any misdeeds the nom may or may not have done are irrelevant to whether the article should be kept, and I suggest we drop the topic here and let anyone who wants to carry on go to the nom's talk page. Now as to your arguments to keep--"worthwhile topic"? why? Following a thorough search of Google and Lexis-Nexis, it seems that no independent publisher thought this topic worthwhile enough to publish a non-trivial work on this school. So I don't know what you base "worthwhile topic" on. Next, if by "sufficient history to sustain an article" you mean that since the school is pretty old there must be local sources that have written about it over the years, I would say, first, you would have to actually find those sources to justify keeping the article, but second, local sources should be regarded as trivial, otherwise we'd be keeping articles on local businesses which are written up in local papers all the time. Pan Dan 17:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 00:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete non-notable school, 45% of the schools in my county are so-called "California Distinguished Schools". That alone is not enough to sway my vote. Trusilver 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pan and Trusilver. JoshuaZ 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep notable school with many awards!!! Audiobooks 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rob Thivierr, worthwhile topic with multiple verifiable sources. The school is approaching 70 years old and meets WP:SCHOOLS as well. Yamaguchi先生 03:34, 22 November 2006
  • Delete, award is given often enough as to not qualify as a "major award"-this is not an award on the scale of an Oscar, a Grammy, or a Heismann Trophy, more on the scale of "good job" plaques for principals to have in their offices. Press coverage is not enough in-depth information from which to write a valid article from secondary sources. Seraphimblade 07:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensical Marketing

At best this is a neologism, at worst it's spam. A term made up by one company to describe their style of marketing. Judging by Google, not a term in widespread use. Deprodded by author without explanation. eaolson 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Spam. Stammer Stammer 16:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Moosejaw.com. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologism, advert, spam. Moreschi 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. skip (t / c) 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. My name is Jeffrey Wolfe and I own Moosejaw. Really sorry to hear that people think my work should be deleted. Nonsensical marketing is a totally legit form of marketing and you will hear more and more about it. As seen in all the articles I posted as references, Moosejaw has used nonsensical marketing to grow the business over 100% for five years in a row. The whole point of nonsensical marketing is that it's non-traditional but it sounds like all of you want to only keep things that are traditional. I think that is a mistake and I ask that this page be given a chance. If you think I'm doing this simply to promote my business, you are wrong. If you know my business, you know how passionate we are about the relationship we have with the customer and that's what nonsensical marketing is all about -- it's the opposite of the boring, unemotional, overused marketing that most companies use. It would be one thing if I was just making this up but I have been using this form of marketing for over five years, I have references that show you it's legit and my competition like REI and EMS have already tried to replicate it. Please give this a chance and don't be so quick to judge. Jeffrey Wolfe, Owner, Moosejaw.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceferlyj (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It has nothing to do with traditional vs. non-traditional marketing techniques. This AfD has to do with the fact that no one seems to be using this term. As such, it's a neologism. eaolson 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - there might be a potential article out there with this title or something similar, but it appears this isn't it. Yomanganitalk 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coconut monkey

Prod contested. Article is somewhat OR, and the title is not proper for the content. Delete to give room for a better written article. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Embarassingly, this is the second afd for this article apparently. here's the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coconut monkey where apparently WP:V was ignored Bwithh 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has sources, verifiable. Remove the bits of original research (the entire article is not OR). An article should not be deleted to make room for a better written article... that makes no sense at all. --- RockMFR 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks kind of dubious to me; the source for bulk of the article is a 1998 article on "gospelweb", which is mostly interested in making a homily out of the story. I'm inclined to think that this is an old canard. --Brianyoumans 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:V No supporting, reliable sources. Gospelweb link is unreliable. NBC brief news story has nothing to do with the main point of the article and does not support the phrase or "idiom" (no explanation in article of what that is about). Article style/content smells hoaxy. And what on earth does Cargo cults have to do with this article? Bwithh 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the contribution history of the original article creator (whose name suggests a possible troll) increases suspicion this article was created as a hoax joke. See [23][24][25][26][27]. Bwithh 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlikely article. ReverendG 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Many Ghits describing this as monkey trap. Rename and clean up? Tonywalton  | Talk 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend just starting a new article Monkey trap, and maybe reusing some text from this article. There shouldn't be a redirect from Coconut monkey - no evidence that this phrase applies Bwithh 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This concept was described in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. I do believe it was called a "monkey trap", definitely had the word "trap" in it. This rules out that the article was either a hoax or made up in school one day. It does not rule out that the article is non-notable or not properly sourced. Baccyak4H (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Coconut monkey" not "monkey trap" and the article was clearly started as a joke. Pirsig's term is "South Indian Monkey Trap"[28], he does not mention "Coconut monkey". Bwithh 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are many many uses of this little story to make various moral or religious points, but I haven't seen any evidence that anyone actually hunts monkeys this way in real life. Would it be notable simply as a moral fable? I'm not sure. --Brianyoumans 04:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (with a redirect for the second one). Proto::type 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mortal Kombat: Destroyer and Mortal Kombat: Destruction

Mortal Kombat: Destroyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mortal Kombat: Destruction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Articles on alleged new titles in the Mortal Kombat series. No sources are provided. RobWill80 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Mixed vote - Speedy Delete the MK:Destroyer as unverifiable, with 0 ghits, Keep/Rename/Redirect Mortal Kombat: Destruction finale is the French distribution of Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, written by Joshua Wexler, note that all of the listed references are French language pages, except the IMDB entry. - IMDB entry [29] [30] [31]. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the above to prevent it from being counted incorrectly. Feel free to revert my edit if necessary. 69.140.173.15 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kutaism

Originally tagged for speedy delete (CSD G1) but contested. No relevant ghits. Denni talk 16:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Nonsense, and the alleged link on the talk page isn't remotely relevant. Fan-1967 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:V, incoherent gibberish. Tubezone 17:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Apparently the article is about Chicago police detective Sgt. Tony Kuta, who is mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times url noted on the talk page. Still, the word kutaism is a neologism, and doesn't belong here. Sgt. Kuta on his own might be notable. Tubezone 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be. Generates a few dozen hits in local crime reporting, as you would expect for a senior detective, but no indication in any of the reports that he's famous for his philosophy or phrasing. Fan-1967 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there doesn't seem to be much if any published material on this guy, certainly not enough to make a WP article, so fails PNC on WP:N. 170.215.83.83 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense Danny Lilithborne 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not entirely nonsense, but neither verifiable nor notable. -- Shunpiker 06:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as if it was notable we'd all be trying to fix this mess of an article. It's nn though. --Wizardman 17:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • HOAX. Google gave nothing relevant except Wikipedia article, so per WP:GOOG this is probably not just non-notable but also non-verifiable, and I would add, non-existent. Horribly written, almost nonsense. Delete per nom and Wikipedia deletion policy. 170.215.83.83 01:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefany Singh

Speedy tag was contested. There do seem to be claims of notability, but it also seems the article was written by a publicist. I can't find much to back up their claims but to be safe I'm bringing it here. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete the attractive, non-notable lady. ReverendG 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I speedied it originally. There are hundreds of these pageants in just about every country worldwide. The vast majority of them, and their contestants such as Stefany, just aren't notable. Dipics 16:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While it fair to note that there certainly many pageants worldwide that is actually not the case in Canada - there are a handful of pageants that survive more than one year, and seeing as Canada is a very muliticultural country there is an emphasis placed on the celebration of culture and heritage. Much of what is mentioned pertaining to pageants on wikipedia are a result of media history coverage. If you are able to understand Spanish, then it would be best to note the international media coverage given to Canada regarding this event. It would appears that their winners travel to South America to perform philanthropic duties. There is only 2 other Canadian pageants that may do this - Miss World Canada, and Miss Universe Canada - which are notably on wikidpedia. This organization is the only one of its kind for the Latin community at this time - there is no prior history of any such event or organization offered to this community. I have checked with the Ontario Buisness Bureau - the company was registered in the Province of Ontario in 2004 as a special event planning company. Liscening reviews show that the trademark for the International franchise is indeed registered with the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, registered under a Dawn Ramos Productions since 1992. Resaerch on the international company does direct you to this woman who is carrying the Canadian franchise rights. The local media contact for the Latin Community known as TLN (TeleLatino), and Toronto Hispano, have both confirmed that there is no other pageant for Latin-Canadians where they represent the country, aside from this one operated by a Miss Singh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.44.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I note that the Miss India-Canada hits higher on google than this pageant. As does Miss Canada Teen Global and Miss Canada International. Let's not forget Miss All Canadian, Miss Canada Plus... I don't see any of these articles listed in Wikipedia. For good reason. They are just non-notable. As is this one. Plus add to this the ugly fact that it is likely just a vanity article. Note the original author. Dipics 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete A 15 Contestant beauty contest? Just looking at the web page with it's small contestant pool and modeling-school quality (that is NOT a compliment) seamless white paper background "portfolio" of the current winner, it is obvious to me that this is just a small-time pageant. Not notable at all. Beaner1 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - uncontested. Yomanganitalk 12:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional caregiver insurance risk

Delete for several reasons:

  • The article appears to be a vanity piece:
    • The article is entirely the work of Drtcbear, who contributed the full article text in a single edit, signed "Thomas Cox PhD, RN", and with one exception two days later has not contributed to Wikipedia again.
    • The reference list is entirely the work of 24.250.251.228 in a single edit, and are all from the work of "Cox, T.", alone or in combination with others.
    • Except for wikifying links, there has been no contribution to the article by any other editor.
  • The article is full of weasel-worded statements and opinion statements.
  • The article reads like text from a professional magazine or a conference presentation, although I have not been able to locate it in any publicly available online sources.
  • The article is an orphan - there are only four links, none from other articles.

RossPatterson 17:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. OR, as only one source is cited, apparently the article author himself, and major POV issues. Also reads like an insurance lecture. -Amarkov blahedits 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-deleted under WP:SNOW. ➥the Epopt 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age Midget

Age Midget (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A term made up in school one day. Denni talk 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong/speedy delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As speedily as possible. Wikipedia is not for thingsmade up in school one day. ><Richard0612 UW 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense. An "age midget"? COME ON. Wavy G 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hastily complete bullshit. ReverendG 04:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Ridiculous. --The Way 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, maybe BJAODN if anyone else got a laugh out of it. Nihiltres 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I certainly got a laugh, especially at the "stay clear, Age Midgets" warning at the end. Wavy G 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete-hopefully no explanation required. Markovich292 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and move to WP:BJAODN per above. Green451 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - (WP:NOR). Proto::type 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transreal number line

Transreal number line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No ghits for this term. Suspect original research. Denni talk 20:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per the external link, new terminology from a paper scheduled for publication next year. Fan-1967 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that "original research" related to unpublished research presented by an editor, not to published research. I wrote the treansreal numberl line article to support a longer article I was planning to write on transreal numbers which, in turn, would link to the page perspex machine. Whilst the article on the perspex machine relates to my research, I did not initiate that page, nor did I write more than a very small fraction of it. Most of what I contributed to the perspex machine article was corrections. If there is an article on transreal numbers then it can be used to clarify the perspex machine entry and to present a more neutral view in various mathematical pages. However, if it is policy not to accept articles written by the original author of external material then I will refrain from initiating any article that relates to my research. Please do advise me on this point before I go to any more effort on this.

Please note that it is SPIE policy to allow web publication, as cited, pending publication on paper. But it is certainly possible to wait for paper publication before supplying a linkg to the web version. But if it is policy to avoid neologisms then I could simply wait a few years to see if secondary sources become available.

Thanks, James A.D.W. Anderson 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • In general, what we wish to document is established knowledge in science, not newly presented thought. In five years, this may be considered established teaching, or may not. Right now, it is not widely accepted (or even used at all, it seems) terminology. Its publication here is premature. Fan-1967 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with James that it is a bit of a stretch to call this original research, given that it's accepted for publication. There is no policy not to accept articles written by the original author of external material, but most of us are deeply suspicious about such articles and therefore it is strongly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). It is however policy to avoid neologisms (see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). However, the real problem with transreal number line, as Fan-1967 indicates, is that the term is not used at all. In my opinion, one paper in workshop proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering is not enough to support a Wikipedia article on a mathematical concept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. The statement that the numberhood of the infinities distinguishes this from the extended reals is meaningless.  --LambiamTalk 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm finding google hits and refereed works. Michael Hardy 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I'm finding TWO google hits that are about this same concept; this one seems quite likely a refereed publication. If so, this Wikipedia entry is not "original research". Michael Hardy 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This one may be identical in content to the other, and has the advantage that you can read it without registering. Michael Hardy 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the concept is not new, but the name seems to be a neologism. Computer science guys have versions of this, with lots of different NaN's. I am certain I heard of the thing in grade school, but don't know what name it was given then. I take Φ to be a nimber, namely Conway's star. (Just in case its not obvious why Φ is star, refer to Conway's book, wherein division is defined through an axiomatic system for numbers and games, and zero divided by zero is indeterminate, its star. Among other things, you'll find a proof that star is greater than -1 but less than +1 and is incomparable to everything in between. Sadly, we have no articles on this in WP, but I would prefer that such concepts be treated in terms of the sound, well-developed, commonly accepted axiomatic footing, rather than invented from scratch, on a whim). I'm not convinced there is a need for the current article, it seems awfully simplisitic. linas 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see this as original research at least until the paper is published. Even though "original research" is sometimes used as an epithet indicating that something is unverifiable, in this case, I am not saying that at all. Rather, the research is original, and Wikipedia, being an encyclopædia, prefers to be a secondary source. By publishing your research here you are turning Wikipedia into a primary source. 69.140.173.15 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted; transwikied articles should be WP:PRODded if not speedied. ➥the Epopt 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lump it

Lump it (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dictionary def that has been transwikied to wikt. No salvageable content for Wikipedia. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unnessecery dictionary def. ReverendG 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per WP:BLP and/or CSD A7. --Coredesat 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adriana Mercury

Adriana Mercury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is a complete fiction, and makes untrue claims about at least two real people Katharineamy 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Delete -- article as

she is not now nor has she ever dated gerard way, he was dating a woman by the name of olivia for the past 6yrs but they broke up during the writing/recording of the black parade presently written does not establish notability per WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Also, if Wikipedia has any one policy that's "stronger" than all the others, it's the "Biographies of living persons" policy. Please delete any statements you know to be untrue ASAP. --A. B. 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute -- check out the opening sentence:
"She's the daughter of Queen's late singer, Freddie Mercury, and the identical twin of, Billie Joe Armstrong, Green Day's frontman" ... Armstrong is male.
Delete immediately -- just 9 Google hits (2 are Wikipedia). At best this is a hoax, at worst a sort of attack on some real Adriana Mercury somewhere that's totally non-notable and unrelated to Queen. I also suggest maybe protecting the deleted page. --A. B. 21:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:BLP if possible, for making false claims about the family relationships of a real living person. I have no idea if Adriana Mercury really exists, but the claims in this article about her family relationships with certain famous people are blatantly false. The article is unverifiable and has no reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruiserweight triple crown

There is no no such thing as a "cruiserweight triple crown", this is just something the article creater came up with on their own (which constitutes original research, a no-no on Wikipedia). -- bulletproof 3:16 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frinika

Frinika (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Originally {{prod}}ded [32], reverted w/o explanation [33]. Article fails WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm the author of the article... Why is it proposed for deletion, am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucianaPavel (talk • contribs)
  • Comment as the nominator said above, the article fails to explain how the product meets the criteria listed at WP:SOFTWARE. Please take a look at that page and, if Frinika meets the criteria, explain how it meets them. Oh, and please remember to sign your entries on talk pages (though not on articles) by placing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks Tonywalton  | Talk 10:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. Tulkolahten 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertions of notability. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep temporarily, to give author the opportunity to assert notability. As an aside, WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed policy, not an approved policy yet. 69.140.173.15 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - copyvio too. Yomanganitalk 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vexed

Originally {{prod}}ded [34], reverted w/o explanation [35]. Article fails WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm the author of the article... Why is it proposed for deletion, am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucianaPavel (talk • contribs)
  • Comment as the nominator said above, the article fails to explain how the product meets the criteria listed at WP:SOFTWARE. Please take a look at that page and, if Vexed meets the criteria, explain how it meets them. Oh, and please remember to sign your entries on talk pages (though not on articles) by placing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks Tonywalton  | Talk 11:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's also probably copyright violation - compare it to this Mobile Tech Review page. CovenantD 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a copy vio, but it should be deleted because there is no coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FreeRIP

Originally {{prod}}ded [36], reverted w/o explanation [37]. Article fails WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Hi, I'm the author of the article... Why is it proposed for deletion, am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucianaPavel (talk • contribs)
  • Comment as the nominator said above, the article fails to explain how the product meets the criteria listed at WP:SOFTWARE. Please take a look at that page and, if FreeRIP meets the criteria, explain how it meets them. Oh, and please remember to sign your entries on talk pages (though not on articles) by placing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks Tonywalton  | Talk 10:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable; see WP:SOFTWARE, as proposed, et alii. No coverage by reputable, third-party sources as required by WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 06:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE. Tulkolahten 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greentreprenuers

Unimportant neologism. Also possibly fails WP:V, WP:OR, etc. ghits: [38] NMChico24 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. —Swpb talk contribs 18:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You get marginally more hits if you actually spell it correctly (unlike the author). Only one of those looks remotely like a reliable source and even that only used the phrase "so-called greentrepreneurs" (without going into who calls them so) once, four years ago. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow... I didn't even notice the misspelling. You get kudos for being so observant. I must have been having a bad grammar day... --NMChico24 09:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tonywalton and WP:V. -- Satori Son 04:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detective Kerry

Kerry is a relatively minor supporting character in the Saw series with little involvement in the plot and thus I don't think she deserves her own article. CyberGhostface 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to the film/s in which she appears. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect ReverendG 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with some sort of "List of Characters in the Saw films" page. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 17:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I will try making some sort of page in the future, but as this article is pretty sloppy I think it would be best if we just started off from scratch.--CyberGhostface 17:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Saw (film series). Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Detective Kerry is a significant character and deserves her own article. She has been the main detective in all three films and also has a significant death in Saw III, since it was an impossible one that Amanda made. Plus we see Amanda before Kerry dies, hinting at the plot twist in Saw III. Gadgetfusion 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment She wasn't the main detective in either films...she was just a supporting one. In the first one it was Detective Tapp, the second it was Matthews. In the third film her death foreshadowed Amanda's involvement, but then again, so did Troy's.--CyberGhostface 20:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Detective Kerry has been added to List of Saw Characters, so unless anyone else has any disagreements, I think the article, along with Paul Stallberg, Mark Rodriguez, Detective Tapp, Detective Steven Sing, and Zep Hindle can be deleted (All have been added to the page, and edited for grammer/spelling). JackOfHearts 23:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was that this is in the wrong venue. This appears to be a content dispute, and you don't need a deletion debate to merge, redirect, or whatever have you. Work it out on the talk pages. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign

{{Prod}} was removed. Non-notablilty and it's lack of existance is the claim. Previous dicussion can be found at Talk:Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign. semper fi — Moe 18:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This probably merits mention in the articles on the related albums, but I don't see how it deserves its own separate article. Merge it somewhere. Bearcat 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should Keep it so long as it is expanded upon per some of the comments above. I remember this campaign being a really big deal at the time and am quite certain it had an impact on the release. I think in its current form its full relevance is not well articulated to someone who wasn’t in the scene at the time like I was, or who isn’t completely familiar with the circumstances of the CD release. I think that is the underlying problem, not its importance. I know there’s enough content/knowledge out there to expand the article, so placing a notice up asking for expansion of the content would be the best course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.199 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete There is no particular proof that this campaign, among others, had any impact on the release. The difference between this campaign and others concerning The Lillywhite Sessions album, was that it got national attention, mainly in Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly. This national press coverage, although cited, is not enough, I believe to warrant its own article. If there is proof that this one particular campaign had an impact on the end means, which wasn't the release of the unreleased material, but a rerecording of most of those songs, released as Busted Stuff, then maybe it should remain. If not, it should be mentioned that there were campaigns and communication by fans on the articles for The Lillywhite Sessions and/or Busted Stuff. Milchama 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree with that argument, based on the well thought-out response that was posted on the discussion page for the article. First of all, there is no proof of any other campaigns - so the "among others" comment is misleading. I'm pretty sure there weren't any others, perhaps just a generic web petition or two at best. Second of all, the relavance of the article is not based on if it clearly resulted in the release of the CD - that is not the right standard to hold it up to, as other articles of this nature aren't held up to that standard. Yes, the CD was indeed newly minted and fully-produced recordings of the shelved materials .. which was the goal of the campaign... I know, because I was one of the 20,000+ people who signed it and had my feedback delivered directly to RCA. It is 100% clear this campaign a) captured the attention of the press b) received the attention of the producer/band c) had a very high potential for being influential. Just because the band/producer/publicist would not go on the record confirming or denying the campaign's role in the decision to indeed release the CD doesn't make it unworthy. In fact, the very fact that this specific campaign reached them by name makes it notable. I strongly agree with the majority of the comments posted on the talk discussion of the article's page that the article should stay and be expanded upon... this campaign really meant a lot to the fans, and was a grassroots effort that many believe played a big role in the decision. It would be a shame to not expand on this article considering its part in DMB history. See some of the other feedback in Talk:Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign 206.188.56.5 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response It is not clear that the campaign received the attention of the producer/band. Nobody involved with the production of The Lillywhite Sessions or Busted Stuff have acknowledged this one particular campiagn's existence and/or role in the decision made to produce and release Busted Stuff. Please find a citation to prove me wrong. This Nancies.com fansite interview with Busted Stuff producer Steve Harris (http://www.nancies.org/news/2002/10/interview-with-steve-harris/2/) does not confirm, deny or acknowedge that the band knew about this particular Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign, or other pro-Lillywhite fanmail that was unrelated to the campaign. Milchama 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response (Keep) Few things. First, please provide citations for any other notable campaign(s) you stated may have existed/also influenced the situation - based on your prior assertions. Second, it is clear that the campaign recieved the attention of the producer, since the creator and the campaign itself was mentioned/linked in that very Steve Harris interview you reference!!! The citation is right there in the reference via a direct question asked, and arguing the campaign's "lack of existence" is quite silly at this point considering the sources. The email response from Steve Lillywhite regarding the campaign was posted on now-defunct Minarets.net (just as the email responses from Steve Lillywhite to Craig Knapp were posted online which led to the leak; refer to Lillywhite Sessions leak history or the article in Rolling Stone covering this topic if you're unaware of the history). And finally, to your last point, nobody has argued 100% certainty that this campaign led to the release -- the best you'll see are some articles saying that it may have, as many in our community believe it did. What others have argued is that point alone is not grounds for deletion. The correct response would be to say that it is not clear, but that the potential was clearly there due to the large following (20,000+ supporters), delivery of all supporter comments directly to the record company, sizable media exposure of campaign (article in ICE Magazine from few years back is a good one too, look for the print copy for some good quotes regarding the campaign), and the fact that the campaign (and other fans) did indeed get what they wanted since the mission was accomplished - one way or another. Those factors alone, for me, are compelling reasons to keep and expand upon the article as I would with any other article that had similar drivers behind it.
  • Response The campaign in that Steve Harris interview was mentioned by the interviewer, not the interviewee. Harris himself did not comment on the campaign. Milchama 01:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response (Keep) The campaign in the interview, which is the campaign we are discusssing, was indeed mentioned by the interviewer with the added comment "it appears to have worked." And, Steve Harris' response to the question was "I can't answer that" - which was the typical response. However, in his defense, he also commented that the decision was made before he was pulled in; this is all fully congruent with everything that has been stated. Looking forward to your citations/references on any other notable campaigns that supposedly existed and had the potential for influence.
  • Keep There were no other campaigns aside from this one. In fact, there were no other movements that had the amount of appeal as this one, if there were any other movements at all (references please??). I am in full agreement with the second post (keep) that the underlying problem is the article needs to better articulate its references/impact because those who are "not in the know" don't realize how big of a deal this was (There's a reason why it was mentioned in so much of the mainstream press as well as why it reached the band). Milchama, while I'm sure your intentions are good - your original reference claim was proved wrong, and based on your comments I strongly feel that your argument is based on some incorrect assumptions/a loose understanding of the events that took place prior to the album release. Its a bit misleading - but I don't think that's your fault, I instead agree that the article needs to be expanded to further convey the influence of the campaign to those who weren't as active in the DMB community at the time. To reiterate some key stats: a) Campaign was quoted in mainstream media (Rolling Stone, MTV [Kurt Loader made a quick mention on MTV News and showed a screenshot of the site], VH1, Entertainment Weekly, E!, and others) b) Camapign was directly referenced by producer and publicist - although of course they had to act as if they can't comment on if it played a role ... they could have said No It Didn't, but they instead dodged the question, which adds more fuel to the fire c) Feedback from 20k campaign signees was delivered directly to RCA Records d) Songs were indeed fully produced and released shortly thereafter, as the campaign intended. e) I, like many others at the time, believe the campaign was successful and played a big part in conveying fans wishes, but I also think it became a big enough deal even if it were to have failed. I'm more than willing to add more content and legitimate references to the article to better explain why this really did matter based on much of what has been said, if that would help others understand the full history. Thanks. 131.107.0.102 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Busted Stuff, then delete. It doesn't need an article by itself but shouldn't be deleted altogether! Bjelleklang - talk 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Question I appreciate your middleground, sounds reasonable in theory. However, in addition to what you stated, I would also propose the possibility that there's enough additional information/background/context/controversy on the campaign and the entire endevaor/uprising that would justify keeping it seperate and expanding upon it. I feel that I, as well as some others who have commented, appear to be knowledgable enough to provide that. It was quite an interesting time!
  • Suggestion It was definately an interesting time. Maybe the focus of the article can be changed from this one campaign to the whole controversy surrounding The Lillywhite Sessions and how it led to Busted Stuff. The article could be renamed something like The Lillywhite Sessions Controversy. However, the majority of The Lillywhite article is about the controversy, but that could be moved to this new article. That would allow to to create a better, more definite history of this very interesting time in DMB history. Milchama 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Suggestion That's not a bad idea. However, per previous comments - I think there's enough information sorrounding this campaign to justify another article as well, and I think it was of enough importance as it relates to the subject to be seperate. Also, the Lillywhite Sessions article already is trying to be the article you propose - it just needs some work. I think keeping the reference to the campaign article in the Lillywhite Sessions article, to not make it so campaign-centric, and expanding the Lillywhite Sessions article to cover everything you propose at a higher level would be the best of both worlds! I like that idea, not exactly what you proposed, but best of both worlds getting both accomplished... and its reasonable. When I get some time (soon), I'll start expanding the campaign article to go into some of the nitty gritty details of the time that were important and add some more references - but I will also start expanding The Lillywhite Sessions article to go over all the other aspects of the controvery as you suggested, and clean it up a bit. Thanks for the insight!!
Comment (last two posts): As far as I can see, none of the external references mentioned in the article as it exists now can validate any claims that this campaign had anything to do with the decision to release the album. As the article stands at the moment, it is non-notable, and as such doesn't warrant an article by itself. If more information can be added to the article, confirming that the campaign was notable, and also proving that it actually can be connected somehow to the decision to release the album, then it might deserve an article on it's own. But for now, it isn't really notable, and as such should be referred to in The Lillywhite Sessions and/or Busted Stuff, but little else. If the focus can be changed, that's also fine, but unless the article grows to an unreasonable length, it should still be included in the existing articles regarding the records, and not by having a seperate article. Bjelleklang - talk 04:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep/Comment Just thought I'd chime in. Keep in mind, that point may never be able to be fully validated - record company wasn't upfront on discussing all the real reasons behind the release, or even shelving... if you look at past media, it was kind of an elusive and evolving story. I think the article can be expanded and include some of the elements you suggest, and make the case as to why it was a notable and influential campaign, because I know for a fact it was (I didn't hand out flyer's in the cold before three shows if I didn't think it was worth it as a fan supporting the campaign) regardless of any other uncertainty. I think that makes more sense then merging as I believe it is notable and improving the article can help communicate that - and so there isn't redundant content in the Dave Matthews Band, Lillywhite Sessions, or Busted Stuff articles -- allowing the details to be explained, but at a reasonable length. I'd be willing to help contribute to this task as well, you have to be a true fan to understand! :-) 24.19.189.5 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment As a matter of fact, I am a fan of the band, and have a more or less complete collection of their albums! But still, there are other ways of indicating the notability of the campaign, but basically, if this cannot be done, then the article doesn't deserve to be there, and is better off referenced in the articles about the various albums! First of all, find a source that can say something about the scope of the campaign...some has been mentioned in previous posts here, but the article doesn't really reference it in any way! If this had been a subject I didn't have much knowledge of or interest in to start with, I'd say delete due to non-notability. If someone can find sources that prove this to be notable enough, then fine! But if not, it should be referenced in other articles as being unconfirmed, and not in a separate article! Bjelleklang - talk 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Okay, I agree with you. I will work over the week or so to cite those sources and add the details you suggest, I feel it can be done. It is great to talk to a fellow fan. I wonder, how popular is the band in Kristiansand or Norway for that matter? Takk :-) 24.19.189.5 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has happened to the article over the last week, and as no mentioned sources say anything about the notability of the campaign, merge it with The Lillywhite Sessions, and then delete! Bjelleklang - talk 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I have been busy due to the American holidays (Thanksgiving) this week. Updates are currently being made as suggested, stay tuned.
Additions & Edits Bjelleklang - Per your comments the following has been done thus far. 1) Additional sources have been added supporting previous assertions further. 2) A screenshot of the campaign, a link to the Archive.org cache of the campaign, as well as a supporting quote directly from the campaign has been added to the article. 3) In terms of scope, the number of campaign members recruited is now also mentioned in the article per prior discussion. This can be cross-referenced with the linked cache of the campaign itself, which -- as previously mentioned -- is now cited. Additionally, there are further external sources that also validate this (in addition to some that already may have been cited), including an article in a state newspaper. However, the newspaper article I'm referring to had a misinterpretation of how the sessions were leaked, thus I'm looking for different sources. What that said, what is listed now and the sources - both external and the campaign itself - is probably already sufficient in that regard. Regardless, I'll keep looking for new additional sources to add to further strengthen the article. 4) The Entertainment Weekly link has been updated to a better formatted version of the article mentioning the campaign. Please look forward to more additions/content updates/sources in the coming days and/or weeks. Thanks.
Merge with The Lillywhite Sessions In my opinion, the additions do not show the notability of this campaign per Bjelleklang's request. All that was added, besides the cache of the old site, are more articles proving the campaign's existance, but NOTHING proving that RCA, DMB, etc were influenced by the campaign in the decision to record Busted Stuff. Unless that is the case, I would like to see it merged with The Lillywhite Sessions. Milchama 23:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - As Discussed Per discussion above with Bjelleklang and previous comments - showing notability in other forms such as scope of campaign is indeed acceptable. Please see his comment on 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC) regarding discussing scope of the campaign. The edits that were made and will continue to be made are intended to show notability via scope and publicity; they will not be an attempt to prove the campaign caused the release per comments and discussion above. Thanks.
Comment: still, with only 10.000 signatories (or thereabouts), I'd say that the campaign is non-notable. DMB had sold around 20 million copies of pre-Busted Stuff records. As such, I cannot agree that 10.000 signatories makes this campaign notable in any way! Unless a source can be found to prove either a) that this number is a lot higher, or b) that there is a connection between this campaign and the decision to record Busted Stuff, I still say merge with Busted Stuff and delete! Bjelleklang - talk 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Response There were some sources that said it ended up reaching over 20,000 -- but I'm not sure how many signatories would be enough. Considering the nature of the campaign - I'm not sure if comparing it to the number of CDs sold makes sense; I'm not sure what the rule of thumb should be in this case. As for your point B) As previously mentioned, there is speculation by several sources stating that it may have played a role ... but that is a point that will never be proven since the record company won't address all factors that led to their decision on this CD, or any others for that matter (standard practice has been not to comment on such matters in most cases). In that case, what more needs to be added?
Although it doesn't nescessarily have to be compared to the number of CD's sold, that number should have some importance. I'd say that it would have to reach a significantly higher number of signatories than 10-20.000 in order to be notable by this alone. If the connection between Busted Stuff and the campaign cannot be proven, and the number of signatures cannot be proven to be a lot higher, I'd have to say that the subject is at best non-notable and unverifiable, and thus not conforming to Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability. It could still be referenced in Busted Stuff, as well as The Lillywhite Sessions, but in my opinion it is not notable enough to have it's own article. Bjelleklang - talk 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, but let me say the following regarding Wiki policy. One, I believe everything stated in the article is verifiable as its all cited in sources. The article does not state that the campaign caused the release of the CD - in fact it states what is known to be the truth and verified by the independent sources linked. I think the topic of notability is the appropriate one, and in which case the Wikipedia policy is as follows:

>>> Notability is not subjective

Notability does not equate to "I've heard of it."/"I've never heard of it." or "I think that it is notable."/"I don't regard it as being notable.". A Wikipedian who judges an article based upon those subjective criteria is not employing a notability criterion. None of the notability guidelines contain any such criteria.

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. As is the case in other aspects, when it comes to notability Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in the world. The notability of a subject is judged by the world outside of Wikipedia: a subject is notable if people in the world deem it notable enough to publish non-trivial works about it.

The application of the aforementioned primary notability criterion allows Wikipedian to determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Thus by applying the primary criterion Wikipedians determine whether a subject is notable not by considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of multiple non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject. <<<

With all of that quoted, I would argue that there are multiple non-trivial mainstream press sources that mention and/or address the campaign. By my objective interpretation of Wikipedia policy, I don't see why this article wouldn't meet that standard. I would also argue the Wikipedia policy does not ask for arbitrary measures of relevance based on metrics such as how many joined the campaign or even if it was successful... but rather, the fact that several independent non-trivial sources (Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, etc.) deemed it important enough to mention/discuss in articles is the reason why it is notable.

Ask a casual fan about the Lillywhite Sessions, and they may or may not know about it. Ask them about this campaign, and I doubt you'll get an answer. This article still feels like it is a small section of a larger Lillywhite Sessions article. I just did a rewrite last night to incorporate all of the aspects of the album's recording, distribution and its influences behind the decisions to record Everyday and Busted Stuff. I suggest that you take a look at it an incorporate the campaigning aspect to it. Milchama 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I consider myself just beyond a casual fan, and I've heard about both. Besides, per the user's comments above quoting Wikipedia policy - notability is not subjective and not to be based on statements such as "feels like," "I think," or any other anecdotal arugments. There are several meaningful sources mentioning the campaign directly, they are indeed independent (and mainstream); this passes standard tests of notability as several others have stated. The objective criterion must be used, not subjective feelings/thoughts of any editors. I suggest linking the article from your well-done rewrite via a brief summary, keeping Wiki objective policy in mind. 131.107.0.71 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Author ascerts self as notable scholar. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Hassanpour

Amir Hassanpour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No indication that he is notable, no 3rd-party or secondary sources. Khorshid 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Do we have to go through this every single time? Please see systemic bias. Baristarim 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per baristarim and Khorshid seriously stop this - it's unfair. Ozgur Gerilla 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to admins: the above two users are guilty of votestacking and wikistalking of me. Please investigate and relist this AfD. Khorshid 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, He is mentioned as a leading Kurdish scholar[39] or communication scholar[40], or Kurdish scholar[41], and he gets over 700 google hits, here I enlist some of the impotant ones (in addition to University of Toronto links and his numerous publications):

Canada-Israel Committee, Women's Rights, Swans' Commentary, Middle East Review of International Affairs, CTV (Canada), A Century of Revolution, Washington Post, Human Rights Watch, Petition of International Scholars, Canadain Peace Alliance, Bibliographia Iranica (MIT). Personalities, in Kurdish Academy, Abstracta Iranica, Encyclopaedia Iranica, International Journal of Kurdish Studies, Kurdish Literature and Authors, University of Virginia.Heja Helweda 01:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I call this nomination 'blind systematic bias'. The irony is that the user who nominatated this informative article for deletion, has a link to one of articles by this very famous Kurdish scholar, Amir Hasanpour, on his/her user page. :) http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/KURDICA/1999/APR/Iran-policy.html Awat 02:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • See WP:NPA. Attack me again and I guarantee you will be blocked. Khorshid 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also FYI I also have a link to "Misconceptions about Iran" but you dont see making an article about it. In fact it used to be an article but was deleted so I put it on my userpage. Maybe you should put this article on your userpage. Khorshid 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Because this is a person of uncertain notability, there should be a presumption in favor of privacy. However, the fact that his employer (?) has posted a webpage about him may weaken that presumption. At this time I would vote for a weak keep if there is evidence that he has no objection to inclusion in wikipedia. 69.140.173.15 19:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shahrzad Mojab

No indication that she is notable, only two or three 3rd-party or secondary sources provided that do not seem to conform to WP:V. Khorshid 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep utoronto cited her in a link. My vote can be changes though depending on more proof coming in.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute, as far as I know being a university professor is not enough for notability. She is just a regular professor at U of T. Khorshid 19:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to see what other users think about this. The AfD isnt going to be clos3ed with only one vote (that too a weak vote).Bakaman Bakatalk 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should be relisted. Khorshid 23:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Do we have to go through this every single time? Please see systemic bias. Baristarim 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Baristarim. Ozgur Gerilla 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to admins: the above two users are guilty of votestacking and wikistalking of me. Please investigate and relist this AfD. Khorshid 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, she is an important researcher on Kurdish women issue.Heja Helweda 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. One of the Delete comments was "per nom", but since the nominator later withdraw his nominating statement, you have to wonder if that doesn't put that comment into limbo... another Delete comment appears based on a malformed Google search as is pointed out. There is really only one unambiguous Keep comment, so I don't think closing this as a straight-out Keep is in order. The Keep commentor makes good points, though, although on the other hand he doesn't provide actual cites... a relist would perhaps be in order, but a NO CONSENSUS close can be relisted at anyone's discrection. Herostratus 07:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Britton

David Britton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Writer doesn't seem notable enough; little links to other pages and information pertaining to the works themselves, just mention that they are controversial. CyberGhostface 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC) EDIT: See my last post below.

  • Delete: "David Britton author" gets 13 Ghits. Not exactly an overwhelming assertion of notability. Moreschi 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Folantin 13:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- If you google "David Britton author" you don't receive that many hits because it's an odd literal. If you google "David Britton" author you receive 10,200 hits. That's not notable? The guy has written a number of controversial books and comic books over 30 years, he's been a partner in a successful publishing firm in the UK, he's helped "rediscover" musicians such as P.J. Proby. How is that not notable? I don't get it. I'm looking at WP:Bio and it specifically declares this as "notable": "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." David Britton more than meets this criterion... I disagreed when you deleted my Supervert entry, but now I feel like you're just hunting down any entries I've made. These may be "alternative" interests but they seem perfectly notable to me and to the other users who've edited the David Britton page. I'll sign this with my four tildes but I feel like one very discouraged, disappointed Wikipedian who's starting to think that the guys over at Wikitruth have some grounds for their rancor Crawlspace 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you were to actually look in the past logs, I've nominated several articles in the past for deletion besides yours, and I nominated only two of yours weeks apart. And not because you specifically wrote them. I do have problems with several users here, but you're not one of them, and even if I did I wouldn't deliberately sabotage Wikipedia just to settle a score.
The only connection between the articles I nominate for deletion is that they're all in the horror genre, a section that I usually browse here. I recently nominated several Saw character articles for deletion, and most of them were by the same user. I did it not because I didn't like the editor, I did it because I felt the characters were not notable. He didn't take it personally, either.--CyberGhostface 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Author has not been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself. If he has received "multiple independent reviews of or awards for [his] work", I have not found evidence of it. Please provide citations, if available, and I will be more than happy to reevaluate. -- Satori Son 15:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment When I nominated Britton for deletion, I was under the impression that Britton was only a minor cult writer like supervert was. I just did a google search, and while I still don't find him notable, I no longer believe that he is on grounds for deletion as there are numerous sites on him. And I think the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself. rule is pretty strict; for example, Christopher Pike has his own article and I don't think he has any works written about him. HOWEVER...I do think the article needs a lot more work such as sources, links, etc.--CyberGhostface 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If you have found reliable, third-party sources, please add them to the article. Like I said, I was unable to locate any, but if I am wrong please tell me and I will admit my mistake and strike my opinion as well. -- Satori Son 05:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete copyvio from [42]. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TLP Music UK

TLP Music UK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reads like an advert and is patently non-notable: gets just 21 Ghits, most of which seem to be MySpace. Contested Prod. Moreschi 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - advert.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Burlingame

Charles Burlingame (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable; only refs are (1) an entry that documents every victim of 9/11 and (2) an unofficial Arlington National Cemetery site. Fails WP:BIO: article would never have been created had it not been for his manner of death. Fails Wikipedia is not a memorial. Delete. Dylan 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep he is qualifies as a "Person achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.", per WP:BIO. It's important to have an article on him, because he is also frequently cited in 9/11 conspiracy theories, with his involvement in Pentagon MASCAL exercises and other factors. Searching "Charles Burlingame" on Google [43] turns up 13,000+ results, so the sources are there to support this article. --Aude (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • See these threads [44] and [45] from the Loose Change forum as examples of what I mean. I've been working on 9/11 articles generally, in addition to my other topic areas, and can work on this article. And folks on the Loose Change forum do consult Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep given Aude's edits since this AfD began. Notability issue has been fixed. --A. B. 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Aude. Also, his case triggered reform of Arlington burial criteria. I've added this to the article with a congressional source Bwithh 22:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - its funny, someone told me that the article I created was being proposed for deletion, I asked myself "who the hell is charles burlingame?". But after looking at the history I remembered I created it because he is important in the story of 911, and an article featuring him makes this encyclopedia more complete. Its true that wikipedia is not a memorial, but the amount of sources produced after the propD shows that information about him is more than a memorial. Fresheneesz 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as now properly cited. Thanks to Aude and Bwithh for research and sourcing. -- Satori Son 06:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blockhead (cartoon)

Blockhead (cartoon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable webcomic. Prod tag removed by article creator. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: Clearly you never checked your sources becuase it primarily is not a webcomic. The webcomic for it was onyl created very recently, loong afer the fairly notable flash series. Okay, that's going a bit overboard, but if the Salad Fingers and David Firth articles stayed up I don't see why this one can't. I'll see if I can add some explanation of its notability in the article. --Wizardman 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Response - WP:INN. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I certainly see your point. But in fact, Michael Swain (who goes by "The Swain" in his flash works, which is why you got so few hits) is quickly getting more popularity as time goes on (I would've been on the fence on this in May or June, definitely not now). I guess that was kind of a response to the below comment. Anyway, I'll change my reasoning to per Es, he said it better than I could. --Wizardman 01:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable flash cartoon. ReverendG 04:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nomination. Quick Google search on (Blockhead "Michael Swain") maxed out at 39 unique hits on 234 total. Textbook non-notable. TheRealFennShysa 19:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, but shorten - the article is too long, especially the plot summaries, and it is divided into too many categories. Blockhead itself is fairly notable - around a million views on Newgrounds for all the episodes combined, has its own collection page and creator is the 12th-highest rated artist on Newgrounds ([46]). There is some name recognition, at least within the Newgrounds community, which numbers at over a million members. Esn 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not anywhere near notable. the person above me is incorrect. First off, for all episodes of blockhead there is around half a million, and popularity for the series has been dimming as time goes on. the previous episode received half the views as the last one. clearly it is not going anywhere. Second thing - There are literally dozens of series that have collection pages that wikipedia would delete their articles in a hot second, this is definitely one of them. A collection page on newgrounds is no basis for legitimacy. And lastly, I could name more than half the people on the top 50 rated artists that do not have wikis, and many flash artists are not on that top 50 list that have wikis, like IllWillPress. This also rules out the top 50 rated artists being a deciding factor in the legitimacy of this wiki.
Comment: Not counting the few Blockhead flashes by other artists, the Blockhead episodes have been viewed 1,224,098 times as of today. Presence on the Newgrounds top 50 is certainly not a guarantee of having a wikipedia article; however, 7 out of the top 15 (not including this article, which would make it 8/15) have one or more articles devoted to their work: 1a 1b, 2a 2b, 3a 3b, 7, 8, 14, 15a 15b. Esn 03:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Stone Trek and 8-bit Theater? I'm surprised those are still around. Regardless, an individual episode averages around 100,000 views (12 cartoons divided by your figure), and the previous episode has half of that average. Series such as Xombie, Brackenwood and animators like David Firth often receive millions of views per cartoon rather than all submissions as a whole. Regardless of the numbers, the all-around spread of Blockhead is lightyears behind a series like Salad Fingers and Brackenwood. You're not going to find people outside of Newgrounds that know about Blockhead, and Newgrounds is an extremely limited audience. Its notability beyond Newgrounds is minimal if not anything at all.
The previous episode has fewer views because it's been out for far less time than the other episodes, which would be obvious to someone who isn't just tryign to bash the article. LegendaryFrog's also been on the way down, why not just delete his article since it fits your standards for deletion? Of course that would not happen, that's my point. I've never heard of Stone Trek ever actually, so notability based on hits is subjective. I don't mind the deletions, I just mind when the reasons for them are full of holes.--Wizardman 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly why I said basing this on views per cartoon is regardless to the fact that no one has heard of Blockhead outside of Newgrounds, and a Newgrounds fanbase is not a valid reason to keep an article. All I'm hearing are numbers, and if we were to base a flash artist's validity by views per cartoon there'd be dozens of articles on wikipedia that are illegitimate, much like this one.
  • Weak delete. 38.100.34.2 01:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Esn, but article needs to be fixed. --75.36.83.52 14:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable flash series; as has been said, a Newgrounds "cult following" is hardly prominent enough a reason for a keep, and outside of that fanbase I doubt anyone would care to read this.
  • Delete: The subject matter is too obscure, and the Flash itself is of too narrow a range of publicity to warrant its own page. Goldenclaw 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This cartoon series is not very well known outside of Newgrounds. Only the strongest fans would appreciate an article of this length anyway. StarberryX1337 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: There have been one too many jumpstart flash series just like this one that burn out and this one is beginning to show its lack of fuel. It wasn't notable enough to begin with.
  • Strong Delete Fails to establish any form of notability. Canadian-Bacon t c 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikie Da Poet

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles —Swpb talk contribs 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete This was not written by the artist himself, it was written by me. And no it is not made up at all. He is a real rapper and everything there is truthful. Check out myspace.com/mikiedapoet011, myspace.com/mikiedapoet2006, and cdbaby.com/mikie if you dont believe me.
    • Comment The problem is, none of those are reliable sources. Shimeru 05:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Here are reliable sources?

http://music.yahoo.com/ar-12701099---Mikie-Da-Poet http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=823611567

    • Comment No, not really. In order to be a reliable source, it must meet certain criteria. It must be credible and verifiable. Free-upload sites such as MySpace are verifiable, but they are not credible, because anybody can create a page and add whatever content they want. The kind of independent reliable sources we'd need to justify the claims in this article would be things such as articles in culture- or music-oriented magazines, newspaper articles, mention in published books, newsmagazine articles, TV news segments, and the like. WP:BAND might be helpful also. Shimeru 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree. The information appears to be entirely made up (apparently he was close to Michael Jordan and Kanye West, among others), it's likely made by the artist himself (it's the user's only contribution, not to mention that it lapses into first person at times), and it's not even remotely objective. My favorite line is "A lot of people started hating on him, wanting money that wasn't there or just a little scared that he got so good so fast." Bottom line: delete this. Please. Tozoku 18:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Artist does seem to exist, but albums are on a "vanity press"-style recording studio, DDMI. Much of the other content of the article appears unverifiable. Shimeru 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zvi Tohar

Zvi Tohar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Obscure airline pilot. Article's sole mention of notability is that he once flew a war crimes victim. Non-notable. KazakhPol 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wow. Is this non-notable or what? Diez2
  • Delete I would agree. --Brianyoumans 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I suspect it's the former of Diez2's two choices. Grutness...wha? 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Tohar played a major role in getting Adolf Eichmann onto the plane and flying him from Argentina to Israel. The article needs to be expanded to clarify Tohar's role. Eichmann was not a "victim", but the perpetrator of some of the most horrific acts in human history. In one of the greatest trials in history, Eichmann was convicted and hanged for crimes against humanity. That anyone could be so unfamiliar with one of the major events of the twentieth century and characterize Eichmann as a "victim" is pathetic, and that so many would be so equally ignorant and fail to read the source provided is a strong indication of the flaws of the AfD process. Alansohn 09:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Generally, referring to the ignorance of other users is an ineffective way of changing their minds. I'm not sure why I typed victim... I must have been tired or something. KazakhPol 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Personally I tend to assume good faith includes "getting it so far wrong that the editor obviously made a typo". Perhaps Alansohn could remember civility in this context and provide some evidence that the subject of the AfD is notable beyond being the guy behind the wheel of a plane? Tonywalton  | Talk 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed Eichmann was far from being a "war crimes victim", but what on Earth makes the bloke that happened to fly Eichmann to Israel following his capture notable? Can we expect an article on the co-pilot? The security person who took delivery of Eichmann at the airport? Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment the external link to a Time Magazine article mentions Tohar once, stating only that he flew the plane. Any "major role" he played in getting Eichmann onto the plane seems not to be documented there. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We have articles of notable pilots of notable flights, ships: Joseph Hazelwood (of Exxon Valdez infamy), Edward Smith (Titanic), Ilan Ramon (of Operation Opera), and virtually all astronauts/cosmonauts/space tourists/etc. and any number of those who were "behind the wheel" at an important juncture. Carlossuarez46 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You're taking those individuals out of context. Hazelwood and Smith are notable because it was their fault that those crashes occured. Their negligence was what led to those accidens. Ramon was notable in his own right, separate from that crash. KazakhPol 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hazelwood was in the news for years after the Valdez wreck, due to the litigation. --Brianyoumans 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please remember, WP:INN Tonywalton  | Talk 09:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Zvi Tohar himself was a war crimes victim, or if he played an important role in capturing Eichmann, then keep. Otherwise, delete. 38.100.34.2 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All-style Fighting Competition

Reads like an advertisement, and fails WP:SPAM. Diez2 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks notable, doesn't read like spam at all. --- RockMFR 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like it needs cleanup, doesn't read like spam to me either. Let's see what it looks like if I clean it up a bit. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'd be happier if the external link worked. There may be concerns about its verifiability. Jendo by the same author has been tagged for questionable {{notability}} (though not spam), but at least its external link works. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Ah. A typo in the URL (there shouldn't be a slash on the end). Tonywalton  | Talk 12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. It doesn't read like an ad now, must have been redacted. Herostratus 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis Group

Analysis Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:SPAM. It reads like an advertisement and is an advertisement. Diez2 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Analysis Group is a privately held company that competes in the same markets as LECG and CRAI; article should be revised for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruits (talk • contribs) 13:07, November 19, 2006
  • Delete Definitely an advertisement. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep After doing some research (very hard with this company as the term "analysis group" is used alot) this appears to be an important US national research company. Studies and experts at this firm are constantly cited by news organizations and other companies such as Johnson & Johnson [47][48][49]. An article of something notable looking like an advert means there needs to be a content change, not a deletion. --Oakshade 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Oakshade. --- RockMFR 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Analysis Group easily meets WP notability guidelines: A quick search of nearly any good news search will turn up dozens of articles about our work- Try the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, for instance, on which a search produces several dozen articles. These alone meet WP:NN criteria for inclusion easily. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [Comments revised by Lanoitarus, 11/27/2006].
    • I should probably also add that I agree the article as it stands could use allot in the way of improvement. Someone basically paraphrased whats there from the front of analysisgroup.com. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-write. 38.100.34.2 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE into Comerica Park, amazingly enough. To my mind this it the cruftiest of the cruft, and putting even a reduced version into the Comerica Park article unbalances it quite a bit. I wonder how long the material will actually survive in that article... do you ever get the impression that people sometimes vote Merge if an article exists that could possible take the material, just to avoid making a definite stand? Oh well, whatever... Herostratus 05:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First game at Comerica Park

First game at Comerica Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't think that this is notable. Other parks don't have articles about the first games held there. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge to Comerica Park. --- RockMFR 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - perhaps in a history section.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do not see why it isn't notable. The article describes the first game at a Major League Baseball stadium. Just because no other stadiums have articles about first games doesn't mean that this article isn't notable. X96lee15 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge whatever is necessary to Comerica park. We do not need articles on the first game at each park, that'll just lead to having articles on every game (why is the first game inherently more notable than subsequent ones?). Next thing you know, we'll have articles on the First Class of Harvard and the First Issue of TIME Magazine, etc. --The Way 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being the first game at a particular stadium brings no inherent notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)
  • Merge to Comerica Park. Yankee Rajput 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all the content into Comerica Park. 38.100.34.2 01:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Paris, Ontario. Agent 86 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Fall Fair

Paris Fall Fair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non-notable local event; previous speedy removed with suggestion for AFD. Words cannot express this article's apparent lack of notability. Brianyoumans 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments for deletions are rooted in policy. When the film is actually released, or some reliable references are released, the article can be (re)created. There's no rush - see meta:Eventualism. Proto::type 10:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Villain (2007 film)

Villain (2007 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable film, as well as recreation of previously deleted article - see prior AfD. Film is listed on IMDB, but that alone is not a standard reference for notability. Article contains many crystal ball statements and unsourced speculation and/or personal speculation about this future film. Initial Google searches were inconclusive due to the film's common name, but search on "villain +Benfer" yeilds only 127 unique out of 591 total, which is fairly low, and only about half of those unique actually refer to this film. With the exception of a passing reference on the FilmThreat website, no other mentions are from major sites. Until the film is ever released/and or can provide reputable citations, I recommend Delete. MikeWazowski 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Exceptionally non-notable. Articles on unreleased films should be avoided unless there is extensive press coverage, which clearly does not exist here. Fan-1967 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unimportant, if the movie is made then article can be recreated. ReverendG 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Let us see the criteria at WP:NF. "Has the film actually entered production or is it just rumored or expected to be made?" The people involved with the film (not just the director) have made independent statements about their work on the film, so it would seem that the film is more than a rumour. Some links: ([50] [51]) [52] [53]
"Will the film be notable upon release?" It will be, because according to IMDB it will feature work by several notable people, including Warwick Davis, Hunter Gomez, Nathan Furst (music), David Rand and Jason Yanofsky (visual effects). It is also being partially produced by Newgrounds (Tom Fulp is the CEO).
Perhaps the problem here is that those notable people haven't yet made official statements confirming their roles in the film (EDIT: with the exception of Hunter Gomez - see "further comment" post below). However, neither has any of them tried to get it removed from their profile on IMDB, and some of them have been there for months now (Warwick Davis has been there since September, I think). You would think that ONE of them would have noticed and tried to get it removed by now if it wasn't true. Of course, I'm not sure exactly how the IMDB system works - perhaps I'm wrong and they wouldn't be able to.
So it is established that the film IS being worked on, but its notability rests on the trustworthiness of IMDB. I think that we should take a wait-and-see approach here. It can be mentioned in the article that those people have not yet independently confirmed that they are in the film. However, it could well be a big waste of many people's time to delete this article now. Being UNSURE if something is notable or not is not the same as being SURE of its non-notability, and in this case it is the former which is true. Until more information appears, I believe that this article should stay, but with "citation needed" notes for the involvement of those people who give it notability. As I see it, there is not currently enough information to judge whether it is notable or not per wikipedia standards, but there seems to be more likelihood that it is notable at the moment than the opposite. We SHOULD NOT make such a decision until the information becomes available, one way or the other - it is far better to err on the side of caution and wait. Esn 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment IMDB frequently has unreliable information on unreleased films, unless you really believe that Saw IV is going to be a musical with Jessica Alba and Goran Visnjic. As for deleting something because we're unsure, that is exactly our policy. We must be sure of something in order to keep it. Fan-1967 14:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I can't seem to find that passage. However, I've looked at WP:DP and found this: "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." There's another reason to doubt here, which is that the director, Robert Benfer, may in fact be notable. The admin who deleted his entry and prevented its recreation this october (see page logs) based his judgement on this deletion vote in February 2005. A review of his notability since that time has not been undertaken despite the release of a feature film in 2005 which (according to Filmthreat [54]) sold 2000 copies in its first month despite being sold only online. According to WP:BIO, "a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" and "Name recognition" may be signs of notability. It would seem to me that he satisfies those criteria: he's the 6th-most bookmarked artist on Newgrounds (a website with over 1 million members), he's recognized within the stop motion animation community (a search for "knox", on animateclay.com results in 369 news & forum entries - to compare, a search for "Wallace and Gromit" results in 755 entries), his home page has been visited about 13 million times and his films on Newgrounds had been viewed 10,959,036 times as of Oct. 12, 2006.
I realize that this is not the place to vote for undeletion of the Robert Benfer article - I am just pointing out here that there seems to be more evidence leaning in favour of this film being notable than the opposite. To review what we have so far:
1) The film IS already being produced - this by itself fulfills one of the requirements of WP:NF
2) The film would be notable if the cast list on IMDB was true
3) The film would be notable if the director (who was last checked for notability on wikipedia over a year and a half ago) currently fulfilled the requirements on notability. This deletion discussion will finish soon, and there is not enough time to get a proper deletion review on the director, so I am presenting the evidence that I would have presented over there here for your judgement.
4) WP:DP says "If in doubt, don't delete." Not only are we in doubt, but there seems to be more likelyhood currently that this film is indeed notable.
Esn 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Further comment: Sorry, I said before that "those notable people haven't yet made official statements confirming their roles in the film". That's slightly wrong - Hunter Gomez has (in the "current projects" section on his website, here). I'm not quite sure if his record so far would make him notable per wikipedia standards (he had some minor roles in some famous projects), but I thought I'd mention it. Esn 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Benfer's notability has been discussed much more recently than February 2005. See AfDs on name variations here (2/06), here (3/06), and the original AfD on the Villain film and Knox together (2/06). And for reference sake, a Google search (a better reference point than animateclay) on "Wallace and Gromit" brings back nearly 1.2 million returns - a striking difference to the 591 I got on "Villian +Benfer". Also, without an independent verification, site counters, especially on sites like this bent on self-promotion, are easily modified or misleading - it the counter for hits or actual visitors? The site doesn't say. Also, "views" on sites like Newgrounds are misleading as well, because, if say one person watches a video 100 times, that counted as 100 views, not 1 viewer. Totals can be run up that way. However, all of that is beside the point - we're discussing the notability of Villain, and based on reputable secondary sources, right now, it has no notability and does not need an article. Should the thing actually get released and achieve some level or notoriety, come back then. MikeWazowski 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: My bad, I did not notice those later nominations. However, the first of them at least only seems to prove my point - most of the responses are favourable to the article, and the nomination was withdrawn. The reason given by the admin for deleting the article in that case was that it had been recreated many times and always deleted based on that decision on Feb 13, 2005. The admin explains it in the talk page here, and it should be noted that there were some reasonable arguments made against his decision there. The March, 2006 deletion review featured two "keep" voters whose arguments were not adressed by any of the other users who voted "delete" (none of the "delete" voters gave much reason for their votes except to say "per nom" and none of them attempted to discredit the points made by the two "keep" voters). This 2/06 AFD was made when the article was considerably more crystal-ballish than it is now. There is now confirmation from several different sources that the film is indeed being worked on, and there seems to be a probability that the film will indeed be notable when it comes out (if Benfer is telling the truth about the people involved on his website - and so far, what he's said has been eventually confirmed by other people). Your comment about the unreliability of the counter seems a little dubious, considering that he uses a regular free counter from freelogs.com to count the hits on his website (unless you're suggesting that he bribes the company to get it to show ~13,500,000 hits). As for Newgrounds, it is true that every single view is counted, not every single user. However, he has ~11,000,000 views on Newgrounds, spread out among 101 films. That's about 110,000 views per film - someone would have to have a LOT of time on their hands in order to fake that many views. Even if each film was watched twice by the average user, that's an awful lot of views. Also, as of this date, there are 30,885 individual reviews for his films on Newgrounds (about 300 a film on average - far more than most submissions to Newgrounds, which typically get about 20). But you're right, that's besides the point. My point is that I disagree with your opinion about the notability of this article, based on all of the evidence that I've presented so far. I'll leave it to other wikipedia members to decide which of us presents the best argument. (by the way, just as an extra note: a google search for "villain +knox" turns up 125,000 searches, but things are made difficult because even though Robert Benfer is known as "knox" more often than as himself, "knox" is a fairly commonly used word in general) Esn 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Though the article appears to be a little crystal-ballish, the entire article seems to be fairly legit and like several other non-considered-for-deletion upcoming movie stubs . I think it's pretty harsh to just consider the article for deletion instead of just taking out the non-preferable stuff. -- D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; seems just barely notable enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dionyseus 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Esn. Kc4 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Fails notability guidelines for film, in my opinion - no non-trivial published references that I could find. TheRealFennShysa 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: it is true that it fails one of the three "factors to consider" for unreleased films on WP:NF (that being the "multiple, non-trivial news stories"). However, as I explained above in my posts, it seems to fulfill the other two. Esn 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. If it becomes notable later, can always re-write. 38.100.34.2 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: just a general question to anyone who may know - if the page is deleted, would someone be able to restore the version that is here today later on or would a complete rewrite from scratch be necessary? Esn 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as an empty disambiguation page. CSD G6 covers this sort of thing, as it's a housekeeping deletion. --Coredesat 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Wave Knight

RFA Wave Knight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Both linked to pages were CSD'd [A7], so a disambig is not really necessary. Page has not been edited in 2 years, which shows that there is not much interest in it.><Richard0612 UW 19:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There should be a speedy criteria for disambig pages that don't link to any existing articles. VegaDark 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Exactly how I feel! ><Richard0612 UW 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Steele

Non-notable filmmaker. Initial Google search inconclusive, due to somewhat common name. However, using his films as modifiers, search on ("Jason Steele" Spatula) brings back only 54 unique on 485 returns, while ("Jason Steele" Charlie Unicorn) brings back 49 unique on 199. Filmmaker's IMDB listings are mainly related to the Knox films, which have been deleted several times as non-notable. No other citations outside of non-notable message boards and blogs, or YouTube. Obviously, recommend ...
Delete. MikeWazowski 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is not kept I think Jason Steele and Charlie the Unicorn should be merged into a new article about Film Cow. Pacaman! 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why? If they are deleted for not being notable enough for inclusion, why would the company behind them somehow become notable? An article on Film Cow would have to succeed or fail on its own merits, which right now don't look very good, after a quick Google search. MikeWazowski 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Del, w/o merge: Jason Steele at the Internet Movie Database leads to this G-test:
    60 of about 414 for "Jason Steele" Villain OR "Klay World" OR "Spatula Madness" -wikipedia
    Hence n-n.
    --Jerzy•t 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Altough I voted for strong keep on his meme, I don't see why he deserves an own article because of it and another video with <5k views. Oooh! He has his own podcast. Wow!!! Frigo 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does Villain get a page, but Benfer doesn't? Why should Charlie get a page but not Steele? I totally agree on a merg under "Film Cow" or just the delition of Charlie. If Villain gets into theaters or gets it's "million dollar budget," both Jason and Benfer (who each already have large fanbases) will become known film makers/voice actors. What about Lemon Demon? He is an independent musician and film maker, just like Jason. When his first films/ albums came out, were people this excited to destroy his wikipedia article? Now Neil even has his own wiki! What is the difference between an early Lemon Demon and Jason Steele? Besides, I dn't see Lemon Deomn making any full length films, but Jason's making two in the same year. 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) The Hero of Time
  • Delete per nomination and Jerzy. TheRealFennShysa 20:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete why does this page matter. Cocoaguy 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This also sounds like a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletes_Against_Autism

Athletes_Against_Autism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable organisation afiliated with Cure Autism Now Rdos 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Affiliation with a notable group does not make you notable, nor does working for a good cause. -Amarkov blahedits 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What do they have against people with autism? Just kidding. But seriously, no article necessary. Merge to Cure Autism Now. Wavy G 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Wavy G. ReverendG 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge necessary info into Cure Autism Now. Also, whoever was responsible for naming this organization really should stay out of future PR work ;) --The Way 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing my opinion to Keep per HighInBC. Enough good sources. However, my previous comment on poor word choice by the organization's founders remains! --The Way 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Is notable [55][56][57][58][59](There are more) and I am sure from all these sources this article can be expanded. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, but then delete it because it is offensive to autistics. Or merge it to CAN as have been suggested above. --Rdos 08:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Delete it because it's "offensive to autistics?" Are you serious? First of all, Wikipedia is not censored. Second, and more importantly, the group helps raise awareness about autism, it helps autistics. It seems to meet notability requirements, can you give a reason why it doesn't? --The Way 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment There is an "informal rule", invented by JzG and others, that things that are offensive to some autistic should go. Look here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neanderthal_theory_of_autism_3. Not only that, the same admins also forbid me to keep it on my private user-page and blacklisted the url for no other reason than to keep this out of Wikipedia. What CAN is now trying to do is to create a huge set of articles on Wikipedia to push their views, that are largely offensive to most autistics. The article at hand is more or less a stub, with no actual information other than pushing a personal web-site and placing links to it from various autism-articles.--Rdos 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ya, Rdos I am not sure you have read the article and checked the citations here, if you have then please explain why this is offensive to anyone? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Fighting autism is offensive to most autistics I now, which is several hundreds. Fighting autism is the same thing as fighting us. Would you accept an article about fighting blacks with a prenatal test for Afro-American heritage? This is exactly what Athletes Against Autism is putting their sponsor money into, but not for eradicating blacks but for eradicating autistics. --Rdos 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind, please, that the goal here is merely to document the subject's existence, not to promote it. Just because the subject may be offensive (I'm still not really sure how this could be considered offensive, but hey, what do I know?) is not a reason to delete the article. I, for instance, am highly offended by this article: Anti-Saloon League, but there's nothing I can do about that. We'll just have to suffer in silence, I guess. Wavy G 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well, an organization can participate in offensive, and even uncondonable actions, can still merit an encyclopedic article. The nazis are a prime example. The issue at hand here is the notability of the group. If you oppose genetic screening to prevent autistic children from being born that is your opinion, and your welcome to it. But I am afraid it is not a valid reason to delete the article. If you can find reliable sources to critisisms of this group you are welcome to add them to the article, and provide your sources. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There are other valid reasons. The article is more or less a stub, and even if it have been here for about half-a-year, it haven't been expanded. There is no comments on the talk-page. I don't see it will ever evolve into something useful. --Rdos 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We usually do not delete something just becuase it is small. You may think of adding cleanup tags such as {{expand}} or {{stub}} to attract other editors. You mentioned there is some critisms of the group, if you can find sources that is a great avenue of expansion. This article has potential. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The (proposed) notability guidelines for organizations state that "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." The existing guidelines for companies and corporations refers to organizations and includes as notability criteria that "the club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself." This is an organization with national scope, with verifiable third-party information, and which has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (per HighinBC's references above). It meets notability guidelines. Eron 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knox Kast Radio

Non-notable podcast. Google search on "Knox Kast Radio" brings back only 51 returns, only 5 unique. Likely vanity article as well. Delete. MikeWazowski 19:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete webcasts aren't radio stations and need some particular claim to fame. i kan reed 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Moreschi 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable podcast. ReverendG 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 20:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Jason Steele, as long as that isn't deleted. 03:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 24.233.180.24
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. Mackensen (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Kittrell

Robin Kittrell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

some kid got in trouble for having a weapon, not verified, somewhat iffy. i kan reed 19:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge Whitewater High School (Georgia) — Google shows some news stories about this incident so it passes the verifiability test, but news headlines alone don't make you worthy of a Wikipedia article (otherwise we'd be overrun in articles about non-notable car crashes and robberies). Demiurge 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Demiurge: verifiable but not notable. Herostratus 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not major news. ReverendG 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. If he is convicted as an adult, then re-instate. 38.100.34.2 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chandra Sheehy

Nn-bio. Asserts to have co-founded a new language, but unable to verify that with google. Previously prodded. Vsion 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity, POV, nonsense, unverified, unverifiable, the works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am disinclined to cite vanity as a favourable reason to delete this article because I think it is an accusation that borders on incivility. I do, however, think that because this article is unreferenced and, as far as we know, unverifiable, it should be deleted.
  • (See the two following Google searches as evidence of unverifiability. [60] and [61]. The name "Chandra Sheehy" is only included on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Furthermore, the "Chali language" in only two places: as a dialect of Komo, a language in Sudan, and on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors.)
  • If this person exists and reliable, verifiable sources can be appropriately included in the article, then I would support keeping the article. But since those cannot at this time be found, I argue to delete this article. --Iamunknown 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that the original creator may well be the article's subject let's be nice, avoid terms like "vanity" and refer to it as a conflict of interest instead. Then delete it as non-notable and unverifiable. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Qualifies for speedy per db-bio. The "Chali language" is undoubtedly the native tongue of Chalia, whence Ms. Sheehy apparently hails. Best of luck to Ms. Sheehy in AP History, and let's scotch this article. -- Shunpiker 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waffles radio

I placed a PROD tag on this article, as it doesn't appear to be a particularly important radio show. The article's original creator disagrees with the PROD, so I'm bringing the issue here to generate some discussion one way or the other. Joyous! | Talk 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't even see why it is notable for that matter and I also agree with the nominator. Tarret 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. College radio show at some D-list university. "The goal of the show is to play music that the DJ (Chris Osborne) thinks listeners need to hear." Um OK. Herostratus 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete college radio station. ReverendG 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are plenty or articles about radio programs that have less information
    • 2000 Plus is just plain short.
    • 2000X is 3 lines long and has been a stub since July
    • A & J Show is about another college radio show that has been here since September 2005 and was only put up for deletion when I showed it to the person who first said to delete this article.
    • A.L. Alexander's Goodwill Court, A.L. Alexander's Mediation Board, Accordiana, The Adele Clark Show, Adventure Parade, Frontier Gentleman all don't appear to be notable to me at all because of their lack of content and any explination as to why the article should stay. Since they're all about old shows, I don't see how any new information could be added.
    • Action (radio) is about a show that never got past the pilot episode
    • Bay State Rock, Berkeley Groks, EcoTalk appear to be nothing more than short advertisments for a show
    • Colin and Nick is a very short article about a radio show that doesn't even exist anymore.
    • Crap From The Past Has the same type of information as this article, the only difference being that it isn't a college show
    • House of Hair tells nothing about the show more than the fact that it exists.

I could go on for a while, but I'll stop it there. Those are the kind of articles I saw that led me to beleive that mine would be appropriate. Maybe it should be placed in the Public Radio Sections since college radio is essentially public radio. Theichibun 15:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Perhaps you should read WP:INN. -- Kicking222 16:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep College radio shows should be allowed to have pages on here if other radio shows can have them. Winthrop University is not a big school, but it is certainly NOT a D-list university. Since WINR and several other college radio stations are streaming, people might want to find out about some of the shows they can hear online.
  • I'll give you that one, to an extent. I got the idea from people talking about spamming wikipedia. But I did notice all the show pages that I mentioned earlier before I made the page. There is a very inconsistant policy regarding which radio show pages get to stay and which are deleted. A very large chunk of the radio show pages hold no academic value, and many are simply advertising for a show. The only difference is that I admited to this fact somewhere. Without that post, there would be no evidence to show that was my intent, which it wasn't 100%. So if nothing else, please use this as an example of the inconsistant editing of Wikipedia. There are tons of pages that hold no academic value and are put up simply for advertising. Please take care of them as well. In addition, the same three people who are supporting the deletion of the A & J Show are the first three people who supported the deletion of this page. The AFD tag was not put on this page until I showed it to Joyous and asked why that page was appropriate and mine was not.
  • Delete and Salt. Wikipedia is not for attracting notability; it's also not UScollegecruft.wikipedia.org. This fails the 20-year test and, again, brings up questions of systemic bias: why have enormous articles on every tiny little insignificant part of American life when we don't even have significant articles on major cities in Latin America and Africa? Colón, Panama, for instance, has an article half the length of this one, and it has a population of almost a quarter of a million people. --Charlene 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Then maybe someone should go make that article more informative. It's not my fault that I wrote more. I only looked at what was deemed appropriate based on the radio show pages. Theichibun 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly-written article about a small-time college radio show which fails to assert even the slightest amount of notability. -- Kicking222 16:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Bay State Rock, Berkeley Groksand EcoTalk still exist with no talk of deletion. Are you saying that this article, which actually has information on it, is less notable than these? Theichibun 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We usually try to judge an article on its own merits in these discussions. If you don't believe the articles you've mentioned are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, you are free to nominate them for deletion, also. Joyous! | Talk 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that policy. I thought only administrators and other select people could do that. And I still say that this articleis relevant and notable based on the fact that other radio shows are allowed to have a page. Theichibun 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A & J Show

This appears to be a pretty minor radio show. The article states that the show is "award-winning," but I can't find any mention of awards anywhere. Joyous! | Talk 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. You're right, no mention of their "award". Also says its a on college station, but doesn't say which college. For all I can tell its a barber college.Herostratus 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inconsistancies ReverendG 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GDrive

This article's already been deleted once after an AfD, but I'm not speedy deleting it because the article there now isn't an identical copy. This article has next to no information, and no official or reputable sources. A Google search finds much speculation, but nothing solid. The link on the article, though four months old, says that nothing has been confirmed, and the article says "the details of the service are unclear". The article is a violation of WP:V and WP:NOT#CBALL. JDtalk 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. "...the details of the service are unclear" so what the heck good is an article, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Let someone write an article when it actually exists. Herostratus 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt, until this thing actually exists and is in some way notable. The only substantive change from the previous AfD seems to be that the article no longer refers to "speculated to be" offered by Google. It's still "expected" to be blah blah blah, though, with the only supporting evidence being some blogger who found "a Web index page that looks like a test site offering backup, synchronization, collaboration and disconnected access." and translated this to "Google really IS testing GDrive". Tonywalton  | Talk 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Rubbish Coaster Kid 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 06:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mackensen (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vagina envy

Vagina envy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This seems like original research, or borderline nonsense. There's already a womb envy article, which is a legitimate concept. That article contains sources. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete original research, lacking in sources and references, if indeed there are any. (aeropagitica) 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. seems real enough per stuff like this and so forth. Doesn't need to be super-notable as long it's used a bit by real psychologists etc. Article pretty poor though, I'd reduce it to a one-sentence stub as there are no references cited. Herostratus 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would suggest merge to Penis envy, but the feminists would have a fit. Wavy G 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I suffer from vagina envy. Keep. - Mig (Talk) 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to womb envy as possible search term. Shimeru 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but article badly needs referencing. Multiple hits on Google books [62] Bwithh 00:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten, otherwise delete. Some hits on Google scholar. Coined by Felix Böhm (a psychiatrist) during pre-war period (likely in 1927). Should be named "vagina envy theory". Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep But focus seems overly centered on the awesomeness of the female orgasm and not on actual vagina envy. ReverendG 05:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with womb envy. --- RockMFR 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what content would we be merging? The writing in the vagina envy article is poor and the tone rather informal. I don't see anything there that belongs in a serious article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything good to penis envy or womb envy or what have you. Yankee Rajput 23:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not the same as womb envy. --- RockMFR 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into womb envy; even though they are different concepts, they are related. Do not merge into penis envy. 69.140.173.15 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete without so much as one assertion of notability. cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Accord

One Accord (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Singing group at B-list college. No assertion that the records aren't basically self-published, or any other claim of notability. Contested speedy Herostratus 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator, clarifying my position because this is a procedural nomination from speedy. Herostratus 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. shotwell 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per band notability guidelines. Also, I nominated the "records" for deletion as they were just a tracklisting(with a prod, not an afd, as yet uncontested). i kan reed 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No claim was made that records were not self-published. We are a non-profit singing group at a small university. We are in no way trying to advertise a product. If this is a problem, mention of the records can be deleted. A simple track listing is all that has been posted thus far, as there have been time constraints in updating the page.Daniel2Hs 21:06, 19 November 2006

comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not every fact bears inclusion in an encyclopedia even one that is not paper. This idea is encasuplated in the policy of what wikipedia is not. i kan reed 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Although as an alumnus I take umbrage at "B-list"...--User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruthven House

A boarding school dorm. Denni talk 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete, completely fails WP:V and no real assertion of any form of notability.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, (Does "won the best directed play in the senior house play competition" really count as an assertion of notability?) Tonywalton  | Talk 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. There may be something worth merging to Strathallan School. Ohconfucius 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incia

Non-notable fictional race. No evidence that this is anything other than something made up in school one day. --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Zero relevant ghits for the author name, so this must be some unpublished amateur fiction. Fan-1967 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-Nonsense...?--SUIT 22:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it was good amateur fiction. Fan-1967 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per those above. If the fiction itself ever becomes notable, it might ultimately be useful to hive this article off, but not yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all except Edgar, but without prejudice to recreation should they become notable in the future. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Atkin

Liam Atkin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A player who has yet to have played in the 1st team and fails WP:BIO as they have yet to have played in a proffesional match
I am also nominating the following related pages due to the same reason:

  • Robert Cavener
  • David Edgar (footballer)
  • Carl Finnigan
  • Delete all per nom Kingjamie 22:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Kingjamie 22:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom --Angelo 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except David Edgar (footballer), since his article actually contains some information on his career and Sky Sports News have an article concerning his sale here. QmunkE 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Can't even see any notability in Edgar - yet. - fchd 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep David Edgar (footballer), he is a Canadian international. Bababoum 11:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment He's only a Canadian under-20 international, he's never played for the full Canadian team (although his article states that he is "expected" to feature during the qualifiers for the next World Cup, which is blatant crystal balling as they won't even start for nearly two years.....) ChrisTheDude 15:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:BIO and WP:NOT a crystal ball; will not object to recreation in future if/when they become first-team players. Qwghlm 16:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I will also have no object to recreation in future if/when they become first-team players.--Kingjamie 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Elgar scoring a goal in a win over Brazil at U20 level is pretty notable. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Scoring a goal in a under 20 match does not make you notable enough to pass WP:BIO --81.76.9.49 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Delete all, but I've created page for Edgar's father (Eddie Edgar) so store the details on his son in there until he does comply with the notability criteria. WikiGull 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Edgar was on bench for Celta Vigo game, however i agree the others should be deleted as there is not enough information on them unlike the edgar one.
  • Keep Edgar Now Listed on OFFICAL Newcastle United squad page. http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Profiles/0,,10278~37963,00.html
  • Keep Edgar now in 1st team squad Kingjamie 22:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Wrestling Association

United Wrestling Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A google search turned up very few decent results for this indy promotion. Major stars have wrestled in many indy feds, that doesn't make it anymore notable than some other promotion. UWA has had DVD releases: that's not enough to keep it either, seeing as how many independent promotions release DVDs on the internet all the time. RobJ1981 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I am the article's primary author. I do not agree with the reasons given for the proposed deletion. The UWA has been in existence for approximately 5 years while owned by Mr. Grubb, which is notable itself considering the current wrestling climate in the U.S. It is true that major wrestling stars wrestle in many indy feds, however in 2006 alone the UWA has promoted matches featuring 8 former WWE stars (including former WWF tag team champion and executive Tom Prichard, who performs for UWA every week), 6 former WCW stars (including Ricky Morton and the original Midnight Express), and 6 stars currently contracted by TNA wrestling (most notably A.J. Styles and Chase Stevens, who reigned as UWA champion for 5 weeks). It was the home promotion of current WWE-contracted developmental talent Devin Driscoll, and several Ohio Valley Wrestling stars compete in UWA semi-regularly. Furthermore UWA is the premiere promotion in the region surrounding Knoxville (3rd largest city in Tennessee). To my knowledge it is the only wrestling organization in Eastern Tennessee (10,000+ sq. mi.) that promotes over 52 live shows each year. In addition to the DVDs, UWA is televised on cable television in the Knoxville area. STFmaryville 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Do you have reliable sources that verify these claims you've made about the promotion? As it stands currently, the entire article and the sbuject's notability is unsourced and unverifiable - unless you can show us some independent sources that verify what you're claiming, the article will probably be deleted. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I stated above: having former stars (or current stars of TNA or WWE) doesn't make it anything special. They appear on indy cards all the time. A cable show isn't that helpful either in my opinion, many indy promotions have gotten TV shows... it doesn't make them all notable. RobJ1981 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As a worker on the indys, and of the United Wrestling Association, I can verify that they do run over 52 shows a year. You can check my schedule on cmsigmon.com to prove that I am there each week. UWA was also the key factor in the Ricky Morton Benefit Show which you can purchase on Highspots.com It had a ton of names on the card and was filmed at UWA. If you really need more proof, I will dig and get you some. cmsigmon 14:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough. All it really needs is some major cleanup to make it look less like a scoreboard and scheduale and more like an article and will certainly help with doing so if needed. semper fi — Moe 19:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This would definitely make it in an encyclopædia of sports. As for Wikipedia, I vote neutral. 69.140.173.15 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God's Property

God's Property (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tagged A7 but notability is asserted. No proper sources listed, only some pretty trivial stuff about a lawsuit and some minor reviews. Oh, and a likely copyvio on YouTube. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Their 1997 album did reach No.3 in the general Billboard 200 chart for the US[63] . Multiple hits in Factiva back up the Jet magazine article. I'm removing the copyvio link.Bwithh 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is asserted and referenced. Everyking 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, pretty clear per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Imploded Structures

Violates WP:NOT as an indiscriminate list (implosion is a common way of demolishing buildings). Also fails WP:V as not a single entry is cited. Aaron 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Quality overview with examples is on [64]. Pavel Vozenilek 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Implode per nom.  --LambiamTalk 02:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, just like The Fall of the House of Usher. ReverendG 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as arbitrary listcruft. An article on the process of imploding buildings to demolish them is fine, but seeing as its such a common means of accomplishing this, this is absolutely unmaintainable. --The Way 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can never be 100% complete, which is my usual guideline when it comes to lists. - fchd 07:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - uncontested - Yomanganitalk 14:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John R. Zeidler

Tagged A7, which is probably valid, but despite the near-zero Google hits I wonder if there might be some merit in this subject. Possibly not, but it is worth thinking about Guy (Help!) 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete One hit on Factiva - a 418-word obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer, described as a "master guitar maker". That's certainly not enough in itself and Wikipedia is not a memorial. However, the Zeidler Project to make a commemorative guitar in his honor (and for his child's education) received some coverage in 20th Century Guitar Magazine[65] and Acoustic Guitar[66], and made the front cover of um, American Lutherie[67]. I don't think this level of coverage quite translates to encyclopedic notability though. The fact that its a charity appeal project also dilutes things. Backup evidence from fellow luthiers in favour of the article would be most welcome, as are more opposing arguments. Bwithh 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - no sources provided. Yomanganitalk 14:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adi Hadzic

Tagged A7 but asserts notability, albeit with no evidence whatsoever cited in support. Bosnian trance scene? Quite likely complete bollocks but who knows. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Tentative Delete. I can see now that tagging it for CSD was in error as there was a weak assertion of notability. However, neither the article nor discussion thus far at Talk:Adi Hadzic have borne conclusive evidence of notability that would pass WP:V. Discussion is ongoing, however. We have 5 days to see what happens there. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a tough one, because... how much material is there about the Bosnian trance scene that's available to us? I'm just saying. That being said, the proponents of this article do need to come up with something to verify this. On the other hand, the image caption says that it was taken in Stockholm, indication an international tour which would basically mean he meets WP:MUSIC. But that doesn't mean that that image was actually taken in Stockholm... Herostratus 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still as yet no assertions of notability that are verified by third-party sources. -- Satori Son 06:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William David Allan

Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, I understand that London is a large and old city, but I do not think that confers automatic notability on ranking police officers. The officer in question appears to have worked hard and served his country, but as I understand the policies this is not enough to warrant an encylopedic entry. Dylan fan 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. No ex offico notability for third highest ranking police officer of London. There seems to be an effort to create articles on the entire London police upper hierarchy -see list on Assistant_Commissioner_of_Police_of_the_Metropolis. Good effort, but I'm don;t think all the articles have sufficient encyclopedic notability Bwithh 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The "effort" is mine, and naturally I disagree with you. These people are notable because of their office, just as military commanders and senior civil servants are notable because of their office. We consider politicians notable because of their office, we consider professional sportsmen to be notable because they play professionally, yet you claim we should not consider senior police officers to be notable because they run big policing organisations that affect many thousands of people (millions in the case of London)? This is not logical. I fear that notability is being confused with recognisability. They are not the same. -- Necrothesp 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • My contention is that this person did not reach a senior enough position (third ranking officer) for ex officio encyclopedic notability - and not that all senior police officers are non-notable. Same goes for civil servants and military officers who do not reach the very highest positions. And no, I don't confuse notability with recognisability - while I've long said that a WP:MANDARIN guideline is needed for public servants, I've been even more vocal in asserting that media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • You are conveniently ignoring the fact that he was also a Chief Constable and an HM Inspector of Constabulary. But that aside, are you saying that only the Chief of the General Staff of the British Army is notable and none of his juniors are? Are only military officers who reach the rank of full general notable? If more junior military officers are notable then why does this not apply to police officers? What exactly is the "very highest position"? Chief Constables of other police forces often give up that position to be appointed AC of the Met, which is considered an equivalent rank even though it is not the highest rank in the force, such is the prestige of the job. So, by your reckoning, Chief Constables are presumably not notable, or suddenly become non-notable as soon as they become a "lowly" AC. You are also ignoring the fact that, for instance, WP:BIO states that sportsmen who play in a fully professional league are notable. So, a footballer who plays in the lowest professional division in a country is notable, but the third most senior police officer of a city of millions is not? This all sounds like severe discrimination against public servants who may not be well-known to the public but are still notable in their own fields. -- Necrothesp 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep . However, you will see that this officer was awarded an O.B.E.. Athough some cynics have described this as gong as an "Order bestowed to Everyone", it is actually hard to come by and indicates someone who is much-more than a time-server, as Dylan fan implies, on User:Necrothesp's Talk page . Perhaps the O.B.E. citation would bring more colour to the article. I suppose another test of notability could be whether anyone researching, say, "London: Crime and the Police response" could find the article immensely helpful in tieing up loose ends. === Vernon White (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Order_of_the_British_Empire#Composition, up to 858 OBEs may be awarded per year, with no limit on total numbers. Too common to be a reliable indicator of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is now. Far fewer were awarded in the past. And in any case, that's not the normal number of OBEs awarded. The usual number today is maybe 2-300 a year. In Allan's time it was closer to 100 at the most. --Necrothesp 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The pure number doesn't show the importance, even the American Medal of Honor was awared 3461 times and this is an unquestionably high award. ~~ Phoe talk 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ~~
  • Keep. I am the creator of this article and others in the series. The Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, of whom there were only four at any one time, were among the six most senior officers of the London Metropolitan Police, after the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The force was between 20,000 and 30,000 men strong, policed one of the largest and most important cities in the world, and led policing innovation throughout Britain, the British Empire, and often the world. The ACs wore (and still wear) effectively the same rank insignia as a Lieutenant-General in the British Army and are equal in rank to the Chief Constables (i.e. the chiefs of police) of every other police force in the United Kingdom. Allan had previously served as a Chief Constable himself and then as one of HM Inspectors of Constabulary, of whom there were only two in the whole of England and Wales and whose job it was to inspect every other police force on behalf of the Home Office. And yet people claim he's not notable?! Of course someone of that rank is notable, by virtue of his rank and position alone. If people like this are not considered notable and minor soap stars, athletes, models and singers are then I shall begin to give up on Wikipedia. It's simply getting to the stage when the attitude of the deletionists is making it not worth writing for this encyclopaedia, since hard work and attempts to create coherent series of articles are gleefully proposed for deletion by people who obviously have little knowledge of the subject and little idea of what constitutes notability, particularly as regards anything that predates the internet age. -- Necrothesp 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be sorry to see you give up on Wikipedia, but I would point out that inclusion of minor celebrities is not a deletionist attitude. Anyway, being afd'd shouldn't be taken as an offensive gesture. Bwithh 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not offensive. It's just very irritating when a lot of work has gone into it and increasing numbers of articles are proposed for deletion on what I consider to be spurious grounds. Notability seems to be increasingly defined as "I've heard of them". -- Necrothesp 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If this particular person was involved in innovation, please point it out, then they would have some notable achievement, the fact that the force is in a large city doesn't mean that it's ranking officers are more important than medium sized cities police chiefs. I recognize and agree that many minor people have articles when we will forget about them in a few years, but that doesn't mean we cannot discuss this articleDylan fan 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am frankly sick and tired of defending articles (not usually mine) in AfDs against rampant deletionism. I joined Wikipedia to create articles, and it seems to me that an ever increasing number are here only to destroy. Destroy rubbish. Destroy articles about minor so-called celebrities. Fine. Do not destroy articles about significant people who would probably have had plenty written about them had the internet existed in their time. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. Not to me anyway. And incidentally, I do believe the police chiefs and other senior officers of all largish cities are notable. When have I said otherwise? -- Necrothesp 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable! Chief Constable of two police forces and an AC in the Met? Even if we ignore the AC position, he was the highest ranking police officer in two British police forces, or should we only have articles on the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police? Agree with Necrothesp - pretty frustrating, isn't it! Great article by the way. --Canley 05:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I feel that police officers are severely under-represented on Wikipedia, and the comments here sadly show that people would much rather have articles on minor celebrities and politicians than people who made a real contribution to the world. Presumably even the Commissioners are not notable by the reckoning of some, since they just held a senior rank. Didn't do anything of note, like kick a ball around a field for a living, sit in a parliament for a few months or record a moderately successful song, all of which would qualify them for an article with few questions asked. No, all they did was get to the top of their profession. How could that possibly qualify them for an article on Wikipedia! -- Necrothesp 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Phil Cline, the Chief of the Chicago Police Department, doesn't have an article, as far as I can tell, only Raymond W. Kelly the commissioner, is the only guy in NYPD that has one. Yes, I agree that it's silly that every damn pokemon character has an article and many ranking cops don't, but we're talking about overall public notability here. WP:NOT a London police directory. BTW, while we're at it, how about a list of policemen involved in or investigated by Operation Countryman. Now, that'd be notable. ;-) Tubezone 06:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The fact he doesn't have an article yet is irrelevant. He should have. And eventually, hopefully, he will have. What is "public notability" anyway? Notability is not decided by how many people in the street have heard of them, but by how significant they are. And I would argue that a police officer of that rank is most definitely significant enough for an article. A directory? If I listed every officer, that would be a directory. Writing articles about a handful of senior officers is most certainly not. -- Necrothesp 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Here's an idea: Why not have separate articles for each of the upper echelon offices in the Metropolitan Police? Many of the holders won't be notable once they retire, if they do turn out to be, then they can get they can get their own articles. I can agree that the offices are notable, even of the officeholders sometimes aren't. I don't think anyone could make a good argument that the office of Assistant Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police isn't notable. Tubezone 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Well, since I wrote the articles on the offices before I started writing the articles on the holders, that's already been done. See Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis! And I naturally disagree that the officeholders aren't notable. -- Necrothesp 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment that article about the Assistant Commissioners shows that having an article on each of the ACs of the Met is both finite and achievable, I'm a bit sick of hearing this slippery slope fallacy that if we let this though we'll practically have to list every police officer in London. I, for one, am very interested in UK police biographies, and the fact that Necrothesp has produced a decent Start-class article from available sources and archives demonstrates that Allan is indeed historically notable. All I would recommend is that the article cite specific stories in The Times etc., rather than just linking to the Times archive. --Canley 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I see that specific sources have already been cited! --Canley 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Only just done that, so it probably wasn't there last time you looked! -- Necrothesp 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Higher police officers of a country are of course notable. ~~ Phoe talk 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ~~
  • Keep, I've seen far shorter, less informative articles on wikipedia which have still served as invaluable material for those who use this encyclopedia for research. Plus, I worry that deleting this article may start a worrying trend which would undermine the efforts of the wikiproject to cover law enforcement effectivly, this article being part of that effort.SGGH 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Inspector of Constabulary and Asst Commissioner of the Met seem relatively important to me. Certainly verifiable. No doubt a trawl through the British national (sic) press of the day would find more things worth saying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Just the OBE alone is enough to make him notable, but when you take into account his career and positions he is most definitely notable. Ben W Bell talk 08:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Never heard of him, but by any standards his was a highly distinguished career. So I am the wiser as a result of this article. And it's always better to create than destroy. --GwynH 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please the article meets the bio notability requirements already Yuckfoo 02:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HijackThis

Delete One of a great number of tools for removing spyware. I can't quite see why this one is notable. AlistairMcMillan 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I needed to use HijackThis to remove a certain piece of spyware from my mother's computer, so it might be notable in that respect. But I don't know enough about the topic to be certain that it falls under notability guidelines. Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep Seems to arguably meet criterion 2 for WP:SOFTWARE with [68] [69] and [70]. JoshuaZ 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Far more popular and notable than most run-of-the-mill spyware removal programs. --- RockMFR 15:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind backing up that statement with a source or two? AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems to be a major anivirus tool. Deathawk 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to vote, but HijackThis is not an antivirus tool. AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: "One of a great number of tools for removing spyware." But if you look at all the malware removal forums this is definitely the most used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abustiaf (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 November 2006
Would you mind backing up that statement with a source or two? AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Techguy.com; Malwareremoval.com; bleepingcomputer.com; forums.majorgeeks.com; forums.spybot.info; forums.us.dell.com; daniweb.com; www.techsupportforum.com; and many more. Abustiaf 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I meant something proving that HijackThis is "the most used". Has someone conducted a poll ("Which malware removal tool do you use most?") or something like that? AlistairMcMillan 14:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Has someone conducted a poll that humans breath? Abustiaf 14:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It really not the same thing Adam Slack 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I would hazard a guess that this program is one of the few well known anti-spyware tools out there. Someone obviously found it notable enough to include it here; why delete it? Derfy 09:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this program has been distributed on Maximum PC's disks, even advertised on the slip for the magazine. That makes it notable enough for me. FrozenPurpleCube 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is not a spyware remover as such. It is a well known and well used tool to find out WHAT spyware is infecting a computer. User:Katana @malwareremoval.com that comment was actually added by anon User:87.81.18.240
  • keep please this is one of the most popular spyware removal tools available erasing the article makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, well known software. I wouldnt be suprised if it's the most used anti malware program. bbx 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common and highly significant tool. --Kizor 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, source, edit and expand I believe it is worth of an article (though I could not find many notable secondary sources on the program), the problem is that it is unsourced, that a the article is mainly just instructions on how to use Hijack This (which violates Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information) and that the article fails to say anything about the significance of the program, i.e. its popularity, and the fact that most malware removal software is not freeware. It needs a fair amount of work to bring it to wikipedia standard Adam Slack 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have already added the Misc Tools section (although I was not signed in.) Abustiaf 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, and expand. This is certainly a notable program, but it does need major cleaning up to establish notability and provide sources. Green451 01:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Abustiaf 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to meet notability guidelines but could do with expansion; having said that, it's not "unsubstantial" or stub standard by any means. haz (talk) e 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly notable--I've even used it before :D. The article could use some improvement, but I see no reason to delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - while probably not made up by the author, the article as it stands is original research. Yomanganitalk 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satan claus

Doesn't cite sources, and appears to be something someone made up in school one day. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only is it clearly a contrived and convoluted argument, but some statements within it are untrue. Christ did not have a white beard, and Santa Claus is not depicted with a crown of thorns.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyone knows there ain't no satany clause. Delete. Tubezone 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as something sailing very close to being total bilge. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete utter garbagola SkierRMH 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as likely neologism and possibly original research. eaolson 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No opinion for now, but I will note that the idea is not original research or nonsense. For example it shows up in the book Wyrm. I may need to search but I believe that Martin Gardener mentioned the anagram part in a column a few years ago. The issue therefore is more notability than original research. JoshuaZ 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should also be observed that, even were there no sources at all toward the notability of the idea and even were the article entirely OR (as well it may be) and substantively nonsensical, it would nevertheless not be speediable as G1; whilst Wikipedia:Patent nonsense itself is but a guideline, G1 generally commands, qua policy, a consensus for the view that patent nonsense should be construed very narrowly, IAR and SNOW notwithstanding and even where the underlying article is almost surely unencyclopedic and will not survive AfD (toward which, see, e.g., this CSD talk thread). As (aeropagitica) notes infra, G4 might be understood as applicable here, but ostensibly does not entail because (a) the prior deletion was speedy and (b) the criterion underlying the previous deletion–{{nonsense}}–was likely improperly applied. It is quite right to say that, as regards this article in specific, process isn't particularly important, but the import of process is at its peak where speedy deletion is considered. Joe 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Cautious Keep Let this article stand for a a few weeks. Do not speedy delete. Assume that this article was written in good faith. I've sent a message to the user who created the article, mabye he can weigh in. There is a movie made with this title[71]. The article needs improvement, but if no evidence is offered to support the information, then I'll waive my decision to support this article. RiseRobotRise 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Regarding the film, IMDB's entry on it would strongly suggest that the only reason the name is the same is because the film's about a serial killer dressed as Santa, not the religiously (and other things) based arguments here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete patent nonsense. Do not assume good faith for what is obviously utter idiocy / piece of utter moronism. There's a limit to everything and good faith can only go so far and no further. "Santa" means "saint". If it looks like "satan" to you that's your problem. Let's not be completely silly. --Ekjon Lok 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment who has ever heard about Santa being omniscient and omnipresent? Who has ever heard about Jesus having a white beard? Creator is obviously some random vandal. --Ekjon Lok 04:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake sounds like a claim of omniscience to me, but this article reads like stuff someone made up. I agree there is a good argument to be made for the Creator being a random vandal, He certainly seems to have created a few. Tubezone 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. However, "He sees you when you're sleeping..." and Revelations 1:14; [[Jesus'] head and [His] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow. ReverendG 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a repost of speedily deleted material. (aeropagitica) 09:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: pure nonsense as an article. --Moreau36 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can see where you guys are coming from when you say all this...I am completely new to wikipedia, but I was reading about this theory one day on the internet and was very curious about it. A lot of people beleive it and I don't want you to beleive that it's all true, however, it's what some people beleive, and the points are all true. For example...Heaven may not be real...but it will still be in wikipedia under what some people beleive, not necessarily as a fact. For reference. They aren't made up. Jesus DID have white hair- (Rev. 1:14). I wish someone who is good at this could recreate the page since I obviously didn't do so well. I'm sorry for wasting your time...and for maybe screwing this page up. --Sbarkfe 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've read some of the web pages equating Santa Claus with Satan, while I do not think the theory particularly notable (as I see it, the logic required to come to the conclusion is excessively contorted at best, but some folks believe it), you ought to retitle the article (say, "Theories that Santa is a version of Satan" .. "Satan Claus" is going to get vandalized and put up for AfD, to, ahem, beat hell), spell and capitalize properly (that's a red flag for people looking for hoaxes) and reference everything to, ahem, beat hell. Point out that this is a belief that enough folks have to make it notable, don't try to prove it. JMHO. Tubezone 06:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment When I assumed good faith, I assumed correctly. I'm glad you understand where the other editors were coming from, but don't let this discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia in the future. As Wikipeida needs as much help as it can get. I've left a message on your talk space giving you some helpful advice. As for now, I'll let my vote on Keep stand for the remainder on this AFD. RiseRobotRise 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you give the guy a chance?, who do you think you are? god.. if you look at all the facts santa was created on a whym, theres no real reason the santa should hvae ever been created? Keep this article because it is a theory. also for all those Nay sayers... merry christmas satan--Donthiel 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonsense. TheRealFennShysa 20:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as almost total junk. "Claus can be rearranged to spell "Lucas" which resembles Lucifer." C'mon.... CenozoicEra 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Granted the idea that Santa is unChristian is bruited around quite a bit. The Puritans banned celebration of Christmas on the grounds that it's basically pagan. And many religious are unhappy with the Christmas in general as celebrated these days, including Santa (and also Christmas trees, etc.). That's an article worth writing. But this ain't it. "Satan Clause" does not appear to be a real term in any real circulation. Herostratus 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nicholas is not known as a name for the devil in Germany. I never heard of this in 41 years here in Germany! And the anagram "Santa" for "Satan" was just a joke, I think it was from a movie! Yes, see http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/psycho_santa/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117553/ 11:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax, nonsense, and/or possible original research. Satan Claus appears to be someone's idea of a joke. --SunStar Net 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Cautious Keep I think the article is pretty interesting, and it's obviously not something he made up himself. It doesn't fit the "nonsense" category as it seems to be a theory which is actually in circulation, see the pages he links to. The article definitely needs improvement, but i think it could be quite good. BerlinBabylon 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Brown (writer)

Tagged A7 speedy but not an unambiguous delete. Loks like non-notable conspiracycruft, but this might just be a bad article on a reasonable subject. Reads as WP:OR, though. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Google brings forth a grand total of 66 unique hits for The Warren Omissions "Walt Brown". The book itself garners exactly one hit...this article. If, as the article states, Brown is renowned for his books I would imagine the hits would be far higher than that. IrishGuy talk 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IrishGuy. TheRealFennShysa 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rayfield (band)

Rayfield (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable garage band. As the article itself notes, they have yet to record an album. Also, as the creator of the article is named Rayfieldband there is a seriously high probability of a conflict of interest here. IrishGuy talk 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am a fan of the band, and wanted to chronicle their story as it happens through Wikipedia. They have a following in Newfoundland, Canada, and have toured the country. This is not a promotion for the band, and it states the facts with as little bias as possible. Nothing is exagerated, and I stuck as closely to other bands pages formats as possible. With time, I planned to put links to the keywords that could be liked to (such as Aliant, Warped Tour, Bedouin Soundclash, etc). The band have yet to record a full length, but as stated in the article, they made it known that they do plan on recording one in the new year. It would seem a waste to delete this article now, when it would have to be recreated then. I again, ask that you please do not delete this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayfieldband (talk • contribs)

It isn't a waste to remove articles that are strictly advertising. This band doesn't meet WP:BAND. If at some point it does in the future, that will be different. Currently, they don't. Their "official website" is a MySpace profile. IrishGuy talk 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources

The band toured from Newfoundland to Vancouver, which was reported in many newspapers, news shows and radio shows in Newfoundland. Scans are available if needed. Which also ties in with "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)"

  • Has won or placed in a major music competition. Rayfield won the Aliant Garage Band Contest in 2005, (www.aliant.com/youth101), beating out all other bands in Newfoundland, and 3 other Maritime bands.

However, if the decision has already been made... That's fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.99.32 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide sources for these multiple notable and verifiable reports? IrishGuy talk 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CNW/20060105/C0054 They were also featured in The Newfoundland Herald (http://www.nfherald.com/), The Compass (http://www.cbncompass.ca/) and The Telegram (http://www.thetelegram.com/), all based in Newfoundland.

I realize your point in that they are not a national band, as such, But they do meet some requirements for being a valid Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.99.32 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak delete Not especially notable (yet). --Richmeistertalk 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep They have made a tour of all Canada, the second biggest country in the world, they won the Aliant Garage Band Contest in 2005 and they are featured in many publications. 24.226.160.237
  • Weak keep, seems to be mentioned in regional publications, etc. 69.140.173.15 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Brickley

  • Delete, Artist is not notable, a google search revealed only 973 hits many of which were not unique and were listings of local indianapolis bars where he was playing. A guided Lexus Nexus search of all music reviews going back to 1979 yielded zero hits as did much broader lexus nexus searchs of all entertainment articles and all available Indiana news sources. Also of the 12 criteria for musician notibilty the only possible criteria he meets was the claim that he won an Emmy in 1998 yet the source for this comes from his bio on his booking agents website while a search for Tim Brickley in Emmy awards database (http://www.emmys.org/awards/2006pt/history.php) reveals no hits nor does the IMDB entry for the 1998 emmys(http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Emmy_Awards/1998)Xpendersx 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to vote keep because of the emmy, but it seems to be fake. Co-nominate his two albums:
    • Be Apart
    • Everything That Ever Was
Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Emmy seems to be a regional emmy award.[72]. Here's an article that dicusses Brickley's regional emmy [73]. So, not a "fake," but not an Emmy Award either, not even close. Brickley's myspace page calls it an "Emmy Award," so he's buying in to this bit of puffery himself, although he wisely leaves the name of the documentary he won the award for out of his own page. "Hoosier Hoops: The Golden Era" seems very nn, 6 ghits for the exact phrase, 4 of them Brickley references, counting the Wikipedia article. Darkspots 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all due to lack of notability. Good work sniffing out the so-called "Emmy Award." --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was That's So Deleted - Yomanganitalk 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filming mistakes from That's So Raven

Article is unverified, fancruft, this article should be deleted or at best merged into That's So Raven with references. DoomsDay349 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: The filiming mistakes aren't notable enough to deserve their own article. If needed, add to the That's So Raven article. And with references, as stated above.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this falls under the category of "so the hell what". The only filming mistake from That's So Raven that matters is that it got filmed at all. :P Danny Lilithborne 01:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Ouch! Burn. Agreed, although that isn't what this AFD is for :). DoomsDay349 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. How about List of pencil types used in House next? -Amarkov blahedits 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the the Wikipedia:No one cares guideline that really should exist. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 05:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's not a policy, but you could write an essay. DoomsDay349 16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per ultra loser. ReverendG 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, because, c'mon, really? –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't even think that this should be merged with the "That's So Raven" article, and my daughter watches this show, so watch your mouth :). I do second the creation of the WP:NOC guideline. Trusilver 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what the "goofs" section of IMDb is for. Green451 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Languages